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

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: How America Killed Transit

#91

Post by nine_k »

burfog wrote: post #83
adrianN wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing roads that run at full capacity to rails that are basically unused. Heavily used lines have intervals of less than two minutes between trains and the trains are absolutely packed during rush hour. No road can compete with that. Imagine these people would each occupy a car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMZhQLhcB08 Take note of the intervals between trains.

Yes, I am comparing roads that run at full capacity to rails that are basically unused, because that is normal. Realistic trains in the USA are perhaps 20% full. Including the stops, they average 35 MPH, which is about 56 km/hour. They run once or twice an hour in the morning and in the evening. They shut down for many hours each day, for example from 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM and also from 8 PM to 5 AM. I'll pick several e…

Isn't the same rail capacity used somehow by freight trains when passenger trains are not running?

Re: How America Killed Transit

#92

Post by njarboe »

jashkenas wrote: post #86
njarboe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Could have, can go, and most certainly do! It's spelled m-o-t-o-r-c-y-c-l-e. And it's a wonderful way to get around both city and country. Motorbikes reduce overall traffic, can fit about 8-10 vehicles into a car parking footprint, have generally low fuel emissions (and can be even lower — lots of new small bikes get ~80 mpg in real world use), and never have trouble finding parking. Speaking for myself, it makes com…

I ride myself. But having one that could transition into using a bike lane would be even better. I hope if automatic cars ever work, then requirements for getting a drivers license can be dramatically increased and riding a motorcycle won't seem dangerous to the general populaton.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#93

Post by njarboe »

adrianN wrote: post #84
njarboe wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about trains of vehicles that are automatically driven, can spit apart and only pieces with people in that that want to stop, stop, and the rest of the train just keeps moving? You could even let people pay extra to have a train car just to themselves and their friends. It would never have to stop for other people and go directly to where the group of people wanted to go. These train cars could even be designed t…

That's a nice idea. However, it requires a lot of technology that we currently don't have. Given that building new underground lines in cities is already a project that takes more at least a decade from planning to finishing, I don't think waiting for a) self driving technology to mature (this includes regulatory approval!), and b) self driving technology becoming cheap enough to compete with rail, is a good idea if…

Self-driving vehicles already work really great in a controlled environment like a well marked single lane tunnel. The tech to do this is already here.

The Boring Company has recently announced a Dodger Stadium to Red line tunnel project. Construction time estimated at 14 months. If it is running two years from now, that might get people think about new time frames for tunnel projects. Hope it works.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#94

Post by EliRivers »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #79
EliRivers wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. A cynic might say something like, "Fine. Enjoy Kowloon. Just don't make the rest of us endure it or pay for it," but I'll refrain on the grounds that it's more provocative and less respectful than I want…

Just don't make the rest of us endure it or pay for it

Pay for it? It is the city-dwellers who subsidise the low-density areas.

As for "I would say this ... but I won't"; no, you just did, didn't you? Trying to hide behind a weird passive-aggressive "here's what I won't say" shield doesn't change anything; it's just passive-aggressive childishness and you know it. If you want to take the high road, then take it.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#95

Post by EliRivers »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #78
EliRivers wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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.

The context is reality. The assumptions are necessarily biased. And the axioms are those of Euclid ("There's only so much space next to the train station") and Pauli ("It's already full.").

Perhaps we could build another rail station. This happens where I live. There's a new one being built on an existing line because the number of people living near it is enough to justify a new station.

I think you will struggle to convince people here. Your style of argument alienates your audience.

Given that any road could be a rail, any arguments about how everyone could have a road near them could presumably be met with the idea of having a rail near them.

If you want axioms, I believe that everyone could live near a rail station. It's not physically impossible, despite being impractical and so forth. I find your arguments unconvincing and deliberately patronising, which does not help your case.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#96

Post by EliRivers »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #76
shirakawasuna wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Trains already work as well as they possibly can. There is no room for improvement in fixed rail, no space for progress. Fixed rail is, well, fixed. If it doesn't exist where you are at the moment, or go where you want to go, that's too bad. And if everyone achieves their dream of living next to a fixed rail station, as advocated so enthusiastically in this thread, this is what their homes will look like: https://www…

Fixed rail is, well, fixed. If it doesn't exist where you are at the moment, or go where you want to go, that's too bad.

Is that not true of roads? If there is no road right now where I want to go, I'm out of luck. Or do you mean than no new rail is being laid? That doesn't fit my observations. I see new rail and new stations.

I wonder if you've got a specific context; perhaps you're thinking of small regions of the USA? Many of us (myself included) do not live in the USA. The USA is notoriously bad at rail.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#97

Post by CamperBob2 »

EliRivers wrote: post #96
CamperBob2 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains already work as well as they possibly can. There is no room for improvement in fixed rail, no space for progress. Fixed rail is, well, fixed. If it doesn't exist where you are at the moment, or go where you want to go, that's too bad. And if everyone achieves their dream of living next to a fixed rail station, as advocated so enthusiastically in this thread, this is what their homes will look like: https://www…

Fixed rail is, well, fixed. If it doesn't exist where you are at the moment, or go where you want to go, that's too bad. Is that not true of roads? If there is no road right now where I want to go, I'm out of luck. Or do you mean than no new rail is being laid? That doesn't fit my observations. I see new rail and new stations. I wonder if you've got a specific context; perhaps you're thinking of small regions of the…

Take a look out your window... all of your windows. Roads are already pretty much everywhere, for better or worse. Rails are not. I believe that we should be working on forms of transit, both new and old, that take advantage of the infrastructure we already have.

The USA's geography is very different from places like Europe and Japan, if that's where you're coming from. Centralized transit is a lot more effective in places where 200 km is considered a long distance, and where the bulk of the population is already compressed into compact urban centers.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#98

Post by CamperBob2 »

EliRivers wrote: post #95
CamperBob2 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is reality. The assumptions are necessarily biased. And the axioms are those of Euclid ("There's only so much space next to the train station") and Pauli ("It's already full.").

Perhaps we could build another rail station. This happens where I live. There's a new one being built on an existing line because the number of people living near it is enough to justify a new station. I think you will struggle to convince people here. Your style of argument alienates your audience. Given that any road could be a rail, any arguments about how everyone could have a road near them could presumably be m…

Given that any road could be a rail, any arguments about how everyone could have a road near them could presumably be met with the idea of having a rail near them.

Ridiculous and incoherent.

Your style of argument alienates your audience.

As does your insistence on mass behavior modification, I'm sure.

Re: How America Killed Transit

#99

Post by tropo »

ebikelaw wrote: post #12

Author doesn't put enough blame on the built environment. If you have urban planning codes that require 2 parking spaces per dwelling and detached single-family homes, the area will not be economically serviceable by transit (nor will it be walkable). In much of America, car transportation is legally mandatory.

You can reach the "serviceable by transit" population density with that requirement for "2 parking spaces per dwelling and detached single-family homes".

Let's allow for a road that is legally 50 feet wide. Each house's share of that is half, so 25 feet. (it is 12.5 feet pavement and 12.5 feet curb/swale/sidewalk/etc.)

We need a 20x20 space for a normal cheap (no elevator) double garage. We want this home legitimately "detached", so let's allow enough room for scaffolding to stay within the property on both sides and the rear. That makes the lot 28 feet wide, and adding room for a staircase takes it to 32 feet wide. Including the half-street, the lot is 49 feet deep. That means 1568 square feet for the house.

At this size, there are 17780 homes per square mile. For comparison, we can fit 841953 homes in San Francisco. We can't just have homes of course, but on the other hand there will be more than 1 person per home. It happens that San Francisco contains almost exactly that many people, 884363 as of 2017. San Francisco also happens to be the second most densely populated large US city, behind only New York.

It thus works fine, or at least as well as the second most dense large city in the USA.

Post reply on HN