Let’s Build a Future Without Cars

The problem with a car in your situation is contextual. You are supposed to spend that 40 minutes of driving concentrating on driving. Not talking on cell phones, not texting, not talking, not even listening to music but DRIVING. The context of where you are driving "probably" changes too, highway vs. city but I'm guessing that sometimes switching your driving patterns lags a bit after you get off that highway offramp.

On a bicycle or public transportation, the context is completely different.

At the very least on a bicycle you are exercising (we can get into the difficulties later of urban riding). But there are other things, how great you feel, the fantastic views, the feelings of elation, the feelings of extreme accomplishments before the day even starts.

On public transportation you can read, operate your computer, talk to your commute neighbor or get other things done.

FWIW, I draw a 20 mile radius around my house and only look for jobs in that circle. I can figure out how to bike 40 miles a day.

My solution would be to get rid of cars all together an use only electrical trains driven by few professionals who are less likely to cause accidents; with fixed schedules (and speed) time management would be easier for everyone. And for short distances encourage the use of bicycles (witch also helps to the obesity issues)

But cars remain awesomely effective, because they can go from point to point, and they're so competitive that trains are only really competitive if: * you're going to be traveling for very long distances (but not long enough for airports to be faster), or * traffic is going to be utterly miserable, or * the train is RIGHT THERE and very convenient or, ideally, some combination of the three. (Driving to the commuter rail and having your office be Right There is an acceptable incarnation of point three).

Notice where trains are most effective: the northeast corridor (really dense population, traffic problems, city centers with workplaces served by train/metro), big cities on the west coast (e.g. SF, Seattle).

There are significant diseconomies involved in making a big dense city. "A future without cars" looks like some of those cities and those city's problems - in particular, really expensive housing, especially if you want to raise a family and have multiple bedrooms (or, God forbid, a yard). Remember that median household income in the US is only $44k. If you're reading Hacker News I'll guesstimate you're probably making double that, maybe triple.

Anyway. Gas prices and the relative prices of train commuting/car commuting/real estate may change the dynamic of transportation in the future, but I don't think the densification that it entails is an unabashed good for the common man or that my preference for trains is a substitute for comprehensive realistic transportation policies. And if we must go down that road (so to speak) we're going to need to do a better job of making effective, useful, cost-efficient transportation projects than we have over the past few years.