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

How America Killed Transit

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 99 posts

Re: How America Killed Transit

#51

Post by njarboe »

bobthepanda wrote: post #43
njarboe wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can scale with tunnels. I also suggested congestion pricing in my last paragraph. Having congestion pricing on highways is also a good idea because it can reveal the price people are willing to pay for uncongested travel. That gives people an idea on how much a tunnel could make and motivate spending money on building it.

Tunnels right now are way too expensive per lane mile. And you also need interchanges to connect surface with tunnels, which runs into the same space issues that exist above ground. Yes, the Boring Company is suggesting we can somehow solve this expensive tunnel problem with sleds for cars and vertical elevators, but those are all proof of concepts, and in any case they would probably be less reliable than current in…

I guess my point is that point to point, user initiated transportation is a great idea. It is what makes cities great places to live in. All the millions of possible people to interact with and become friends with, etc. I think we should try to enhance the transportation options of people, not force them to certain train stops or times of day.

You could just do this by walking and elevators, but more extensive transportation would give even more options. There should be 10 or 100 or a 1000 Boring Companies working on the problem with transportation in cities. It is one of the 5 or 10 biggest problems of our age.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#52

Post by burfog »

laurencerowe wrote: post #22
CamperBob2 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2018. If fixed rail is the answer, we're asking the wrong questions.

What alternatives come close to the carrying capacity of fixed rail?

Roads do. Compare the size of the gap between vehicles. Fixed rail is a really inefficient use of land. Most of the time, the rail is just sitting there without a train anywhere in sight. It is normal for the rail to be idle for long periods of time. The density of a packed-full train does not make up for this. Of course, many systems are running trains that are far from being packed full.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#53

Post by CalRobert »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #34
adrianN wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is real estate around train stations more expensive if that's a place where people don't want to be? Maybe you should look at places where public transport works before claiming such nonsense.

Do you want to spend the rest of your life living next to a train station, and the rest of your career working next to a different one? Didn't think so.

Umm... yes... I built a whole tool to figure out the best combination of stations and it's been fairly popular.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#54

Post by BerislavLopac »

njarboe wrote: post #39
adrianN wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Motorist" is commonly used for people in motor vehicles. The problem with cars is that they use so much space. Not only while in transit, but especially when parked. Look at how much prime real estate is devoted to parking in typical American cities. That reduces density and makes cars more important, a vicious circle. The most liveable cities are those where little transport is needed because most things one wants…

A single passenger vehicle could have a parking footprint about 1/10th of what they currently have. My hope is that we could have electric bikes that are like a mountain bike, can go in bike lanes (at slow speed) or on the street but can go fast enough to take on a freeway.

I'm still disappointed that Segway hasn't become more popular as a concept.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#55

Post by EliRivers »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #34
adrianN wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is real estate around train stations more expensive if that's a place where people don't want to be? Maybe you should look at places where public transport works before claiming such nonsense.

Do you want to spend the rest of your life living next to a train station, and the rest of your career working next to a different one? Didn't think so.

What counts as "next to"? I've lived within ten minutes walk of two or three different stations for the last thirty years, and I've worked within fifteen minutes walk of one for the last twenty years over a number of different jobs.

When I'm considering where to live and where to work, I won't consider a house more than ten minutes away or a workplace more than fifteen, and have rejected houses and jobs on that basis in the past. I'm not alone.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#56

Post by EliRivers »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #45
adrianN wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to move closer to a train station, yes, but rent there is too expensive for my taste. Currently I have to walk 15 minutes to get to the nearest train station, or take the bus. I already work next to a train station. I only use the trains when the weather is really bad though, because I'm a little bit faster on my bike and I like the exercise. I honestly don't understand your point. What's so bad about living…

Everyone can live near a road, if they wish to do so, and most people do. Not everyone can live near a train station. Seems like this should be obvious, but...

... but you must be thinking in a different context or have a different set of assumptions to other people, given that it's presumably not obvious if you've had to say it. Here's an opportunity for everyone involved to expand their minds by trying to understand other people's assumptions, axioms and contexts.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#57

Post by amaccuish »

awakeasleep wrote: post #23
torgian wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite right. Japan has excellent rail systems and they’re all owned by private corporations, albeit with government oversight. However, public trans can be done right, such as the case in mainland China which is state owned. All comes down to priorities and fairness. Majority of governments and companies don’t have either

Gotta be careful talking about private companies in japan. For example, last october the bank of japan owned 74% of all publicly traded companies. And it has only been buying more since. Japan is a strange failed-capitalist state sleepwalking into unintentional(?) socialism. Impossible to make a coherent point about a situation like that.

> Impossible to make a coherent point about a situation like that.

I don't think the situation itself is incoherent, just your comment.

> Japan is a strange failed-capitalist state

Is it? Who says?

Re: How America Killed Transit

#58

Post by shirakawasuna »

burfog wrote: post #52
laurencerowe wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What alternatives come close to the carrying capacity of fixed rail?

Roads do. Compare the size of the gap between vehicles. Fixed rail is a really inefficient use of land. Most of the time, the rail is just sitting there without a train anywhere in sight. It is normal for the rail to be idle for long periods of time. The density of a packed-full train does not make up for this. Of course, many systems are running trains that are far from being packed full.

Roads, which is the default everywhere, have literally the least capacity. Single-occupancy vehicles have the worst, followed by normal buses, followed by rapid transit buses, followed by rail.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#59

Post by xorcist »

adrianN wrote: post #28
njarboe wrote: post #25

Public roads are a public transit system. A very useful and productive one. Before paved roads and trucks, many towns and farms were only served by a single rail line. If competing water transportation was not available, the private railroads would charge extremely high rates, extracting all excess production of the area. The coming of public paved roads and trucks was blessing. Many roads are now past capacity much…

"Motorist" is commonly used for people in motor vehicles. The problem with cars is that they use so much space. Not only while in transit, but especially when parked. Look at how much prime real estate is devoted to parking in typical American cities. That reduces density and makes cars more important, a vicious circle. The most liveable cities are those where little transport is needed because most things one wants…

> Look at how much prime real estate is devoted to parking in typical American cities.

Not just in the US, but everywhere. Given that most cars are in use for a tiny fraction of their lifetime, they occupy real estate somewhere. Dedicating public space to parking is a huge subsidizing for motorists not often discussed.

If parking was market priced on par with commercial or residental dwellings congestion would become less of a problem but not many people would be able to drive in the larger cities around the world. The latter is a very hard sell for voters for whom cars are of the bigger investments they've made. But in the larger scope of things it's probably akin to throwing good money after bad.

Post reply on HN