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

We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

devonzuegel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 344 posts

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#231

Post by maxsilver »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #189
AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

>> It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. >> For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but…

> It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere.

That would be nice, but that's not the general opinion of urbanists in the US. They (generalizing) really do believe as the parent describes, to "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit", and they truly believe this will magically fix public transit across the nation.

It's the urbanist version of "the beatings will continue until morale improves".

They'll often lie about it, saying "we don't hate them, we just want them to pay their fair share", or "to remove subsidies". But mostly, they just really hate cars. Especially electric ones (since they largely solve most of the problems of cars, while still being cars). Just browse the top 20 posts of /r/urbanplanning on any given day to see this in action

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#232

Post by mrep »

Bekwnn wrote: post #225
AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

There was an anecdote from a woman in Vancouver about how she would never again use public transit. She described being groped a dozen times in private places, and being followed off the bus by men on 3 occasions or more. I dont see how anyone could blame young women who go through that for refusing to use transit. Just as a man riding on the same transit system, I totally believe that level of frequency and wouldn't…

My girlfriend experiences the same thing which is why she refuses to take public transportation without me. It is a huge problem that nobody here has claimed a solution for nor really talked about (not too surprising since HN is composed of 94.6% males according to [0]). Just google search "public transportation women" or use this link [1] to read into it more. It is one of the reasons we plan to move to suburbia once we get married/start having kids.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=591309

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=public+transportation+women&...

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#233

Post by peterwwillis »

sopooneo wrote: post #175
peterwwillis wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying citizens should solve the problem. And I know it's not your job. It's nobody's job. That's why nothing has been done. I mean, the stupidest thing about this is this isn't that hard a problem to solve. Homeless people are just regular people with a problem and no resources to fix it. You provide them resources and help and they are no longer homeless and no longer a nuisance. Instead, people see them li…

Like me, many people I know started out believing what you wrote. But now that I'm a bit older, most that I know who have actually worked to alleviate homelessness would agree that a large portion of the visible homeless have severe mental health or addiction issues. That is not to say the they are undeserving of compassion, rather they are deserving and in need. But to say that simply providing resources will fix th…

I'm somewhat aware of the scope of the issues. Mental health and addiction are often overwhelming when you don't have someone to help you with them, and so a case worker can definitely help. But one of the big reasons common solutions don't work is they're not comprehensive solutions.

For example, if someone is mentally ill, maybe they just need medication. But still don't have any income and perhaps no housing. What happens if they get mugged, or lose their meds, or forget to take them? Now they're unstable again. They need housing, and some small bit of income, food, security, and assistance. These are all resources, and providing them _all_ gives someone a much better shot at getting better and staying that way.

But it's also a misnomer that most homeless are addicts or crazy. One out of every 30 children in America were homeless in 2013, a disproportionate number being LGBTQ. 12 percent of homeless are veterans. In 2009 there were >535K homeless families. In fact, mental illness and addiction are the third and fourth most common reasons for homelessness.

Homelessness disproportionately affects children, destroying their education and keeping them in a cycle of poverty. If we focused more on providing them an education as well as food and shelter, this would have a big impact on outcomes of future homeless. Is providing these things simple? No, but the decision by the population to commit to actually providing them, is simple. The work will get done if we decide to.

We went to the moon on a whim. Surely we can feed and educate some kids.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#234

Post by wokky »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient...

Driving is subsidised in about a zillion different ways in the US; it's already hideously, ruinously expensive, we just don't realize it. You wouldn't have to artificially raise the price of driving to make it less appealing, you'd only have to make the actual costs more transparent.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#235

Post by st26 »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #130

It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". On the surface that kind of makes sense, using a large stick to strongly encourage change, but I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bi…

I think at its core it misses a huge portion of the problem, which is that bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bit of traffic

It's chicken and egg. Public transit needs ridership to get better. It won't get ridership until it's better.

The large stick of presenting more of the previously hidden costs of driving, is partly banking on public transit getting better as more people are nudged towards it.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#236

Post by jacques_chester »

maxsilver wrote: post #231
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It seems this discussion comes up fairly often, and the solution is almost always some variation of "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit". It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. >> For example I live in a very public transit friendly city, but…

> It's more like the other way around: the idea is to make public transport cheap and efficient enough that it's a reasonable alternative to driving everywhere. That would be nice, but that's not the general opinion of urbanists in the US. They (generalizing) really do believe as the parent describes, to "make driving too expensive and/or too inconvenient, to force people to use public transit", and they truly believ…

> since they largely solve most of the problems of cars, while still being cars

They solve air pollution and some of noise pollution. But they don't magically cause people to carpool.

And even if they did, net passenger density for buses is higher, rail substantially higher again. An NYC subway R160 carriage can, in the space of about 4-5 car lengths, carry about 250 people, meaning those trains move a thousand or more people in the distance from a T-intersection to the back of a cul-de-sac.

Cars are expensive. It's just that you don't pay for it at the car.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#237

Post by jacques_chester »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #215
drb91 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bad public transit is 10x worse than just sitting in a bit of traffic, or dropping a few bucks on an Uber/Lyft. How can this be true? Public transit allows your attention to wander and typically is much, much faster than traffic. Adding uber/lyft will get two of the worst attributes: traffic and high cost, although you’ll be able to do something else simultaneously. Furthermore, it’s not clear how parking fees affe…

Trains are faster than traffic. Buses and trams are slower as they're still in traffic, and now have to stop every 500 m to pick up or drop off passengers. I'll usually take an uber if I actually need to get somewhere on time and it's not near a train station.

Exclusive bus lanes with special traffic light queue-jumping makes this a more even comparison and costs a lot less than rail.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#238

Post by [deleted] »

elihu wrote: post #151
coldtea wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have a small town, then cars are a better option than transit. In a large metropolis, transit is better. Were did that came from? In a small town, you can get by fine with walking, bikes and so on -- like tons of Europeans do in tons of small (and even larger) towns, including towns where cars are totally forbidden and others were (because the town was built in medieval times and its buildings still stand ju…

> In a small town, you can get by fine with walking, bikes and so on In a small town, most of the population served by the amenities in that town don't actually live within city limits. The people in town may be fine with walking or biking, but providing non-car transportation options to rural people isn't as easy. Most people who live on farms would find it difficult to get by without a car.

[deleted]

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#239

Post by jacques_chester »

paulddraper wrote: post #49

> Websites like Zillow and Apartments.com offer calculations for commute length and walkability to everyday destinations like grocery stores If I'm walking to the store, do I (a) try to carry 20+ grocery bags home for my family of five or (b) make a grocery trip twice a week? I don't love either of those. And that's only groceries, not shopping in general. My wife got a 50lb bag of fertilizer from Tractor Supply yest…

In NYC, everything can be delivered, usually for free or a low fee. This is possible because of the density. If you want the 20 bags, you order the 20 bags and it can come today, Sunday at 10am, whatever floats your boat. Same for anything else. That's not even counting what Prime or Prime Now can get you.

Re: We Should Be Building Cities for People, Not Cars (2016)

#240

Post by empath75 »

mrhappyunhappy wrote: post #212
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what GP is saying. GP says that public transit is transit with your neighbors. If your neighbors are smelly junkies, then something is wrong with your community. Shoving people into cars to avoid the homeless is orthogonal to solving crowding issues. This issue only comes up in SF because of the large wealth disparity between the upper-middle class and everyone below them. Here, the upper-middle pays for t…

Oh please the issue comes up in a bunch of other places other than SF. LA, Chicago, DC, Portland, all have the same issues. I am not rich nor am I poor but I avoid public transit for the reason mentioned above. I don’t know that it will ever get better seeing as how the country is falling apart with an ever widening income gap.

I take the dc metro all the time and it doesn’t have any of those problems.

The single tracking and random fires have been the issues here.

Post reply on HN