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

Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 142 posts

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#131

Post by shiroiushi »

rickydroll wrote: post #104
shiroiushi wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Japan, for instance, many train stations have small/medium/large shopping centers built on them. The train makes money not only by fares by but renting out the shops, running department stores, groceries stores, renting offices, apartments, etc... There's what I think is a positive feedback loop.' Yes, many of the transit companies in Japan are really more accurately described as real estate companies that own and o…

How does Japan deal with the convenience tax, that is, stores within a train station charging more for the same product than stores half a mile away? I remember passing through Portland Airport a few years ago and seeing signs saying the stores in the airport were legally prohibited from charging more than the retail prices found elsewhere in the city. Every time I go through a retail development in conjunction with…

AFAIK, there's nothing legally preventing stores from charging more at more-convenient locations. However, in practice I don't normally see it. I believe (not sure) that major convenience store chains, for instance, have fixed prices for the same reason Walmart does: it's too much trouble to track different prices at different locations. As for restaurants and stuff like that, there's usually a lot of competition, so I just don't normally see obviously-higher prices at locations in stations or airports. Of course, some things are obviously more expensive than alternatives: milk at a convenience store is more expensive than almost any grocery store, for instance, though usually not by much. But for whatever reason, I just don't see such obviously and ridiculously jacked-up prices as I see, for instance, in American airports.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#132

Post by pandaman »

infotainment wrote: post #35
giantg2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those mandates are due to the market forces. Go ahead and build a building without parking. Tenants or customers are going to bring their cars anyways and try to find street parking, or they'll go somewhere else. If you make it inconvenient for car and the other option is inconvenient public transit, then people will just look for alternative housing or stores that are more convenient.

Why not just let market forces handle that then? If no one is going to go to my shop with no parking, that's fine. Let it get built, and then let it die due to lack of business. No need for any heavy-handed mandates.

This is because of nuisance and the lack of private law enforcement. People will still park illegally if there is no parking in your establishment and the other people who will be affected by the illegal parking, will get upset, will call police, who will tow the illegally parked cars, and the owners of those will, in turn, get upset and, overall, it makes a lot of people unhappy. At the end the upset people will vote again for the current status quo of required off-street parking.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#133

Post by pandaman »

Kbelicius wrote: post #68
shiroiushi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. And their all-suburban cities aren't dense enough to make it work economically or practically anyway: everything is just too far…

> In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks. Do you think that those people would still want a car if they lived somewh…

This is a tired meme and essentially an ad hominem "silly Americans never experienced civilization so they don't know better", often repeated by American "urbanists" too. I grew up in Moscow, USSR. With 2 min subway, trams, rail, buses and trolleybuses going everywhere. There was no private car ownership in the USSR until 1950s so nothing was built "for cars". Yet everyone dreamed of owning a car. There were films about people getting cars. The government ran lottery where prizes were appliances and the main prize was a car. The wait list to buy an overpriced (~2 annual average incomes) car was 5+ years. People still bought them at 3x price on the black market. Some people bought motorcycles and drove them with a sidecar as poor replacement for an unaffordable for them car. People went to work in the oil fields in the north for a year to afford a car. So yes, people do want cars even after they experienced the wonders of public transit. People who have anxiety driving or cannot give up their drinking habit are a small minority.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#134

Post by Kbelicius »

pandaman wrote: post #133
Kbelicius wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks. Do you think that those people would still want a car if they lived somewh…

This is a tired meme and essentially an ad hominem "silly Americans never experienced civilization so they don't know better", often repeated by American "urbanists" too. I grew up in Moscow, USSR. With 2 min subway, trams, rail, buses and trolleybuses going everywhere. There was no private car ownership in the USSR until 1950s so nothing was built "for cars". Yet everyone dreamed of owning a car. There were films ab…

> This is a tired meme and essentially an ad hominem "silly Americans never experienced civilization so they don't know better"

It has nothing to do whit Americans, nor did I imply it. Simply put, as it wasn't already simply put, my claim is that changing incentives changes peoples (not just Americans) wants. I would really like to hear why you think that that isn't true. I didn't even mention the US in my post, GP did. But he isn't making an ad hominem but somehow, according to you, I am. Is that because you agree with him and not with me so I'm making a fallacy and not him? Either way, neither did I nor GP make an ad hominem. If you thing that somebody made an ad hominem show some good faith and show where and why is it an ad hominem.

> I grew up in Moscow, USSR. With 2 min subway, trams, rail, buses and trolleybuses going everywhere. There was no private car ownership in the USSR until 1950s so nothing was built "for cars". Yet everyone dreamed of owning a car. There were films about people getting cars. The government ran lottery where prizes were appliances and the main prize was a car. The wait list to buy an overpriced (~2 annual average incomes) car was 5+ years. People still bought them at 3x price on the black market. Some people bought motorcycles and drove them with a sidecar as poor replacement for an unaffordable for them car. People went to work in the oil fields in the north for a year to afford a car. So yes, people do want cars even after they experienced the wonders of public transit.

It didn't occur to you that maybe back then people dreamed of owning a car because it was a novelty, a status symbol? Are they still making films about getting a car in Russia? Why not?

I'm not saying that nobody wants or needs a car. All I'm saying is that in places with good public transit and walkablity not everybody needs a car for day to day life, and of those that don't need a car majority don't dream of getting a car as you put it.

> People who have anxiety driving or cannot give up their drinking habit are a small minority.

Wow, everybody that doesn't dream of owning a car suffers anxiety or is an alcoholic... really?

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#135

Post by shiroiushi »

Kbelicius wrote: post #85
shiroiushi wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think that those people would still want a car if they lived somewhere with a good public transit and walkability? Yes, I really do. You can see it in comments here on HN and any other place the transit-vs-cars discussion comes up and Americans are involved. Sure, there's some Americans who'd really like to live someplace with good public transit and walkability, but don't be fooled: most Americans (IMO) just…

> Yes, I really do. So you don't think that people respond to incentives? Quite an interesting take. > most Americans (IMO) just aren't like this and really do want to stick with their car-based lifestyle. Because nobody, not just Americans, likes change. I'd like to stick with my public transit/walking lifestyle but if overtime that lifestyle becomes hard to maintain I'd want to get a car. > If most Americans were l…

>You've missed the point. I made absolutely no claims about Americans.

You didn't, but I did. Like any place, Americans have a culture of their own, and car ownership is a big, big part of that culture in most of the country. (Similarly, owning guns is a big part of that culture for a large fraction of the population.)

>When a person moves from a place with bad public transit and walkablity to place with good public transit and walkablity it is likely that they'll go car free or at least use their care much less. Same applies the other way around.

Well, of course: people have to be practical at some point. Someone moving to a car-bound hellscape is going to need to get a car to have an enjoyable life, and someone moving to a dense city where car ownership is extremely expensive and inconvenient is likely to not want a car at all. But people don't just randomly move to these places: they move there because they want to for some reason, and the ubiquity (or not) of cars is probably a big part of that reason for many. People who absolutely love driving everywhere and hate public transit aren't going to move from suburban USA to Manhattan or Berlin or Tokyo, and people who like living carfree in major cities aren't likely to make the reverse move unless there's some huge incentive (high-paying job, family obligation, etc.) and even here they're probably not going to be too happy with the change.

I really feel like a large portion of the pro-dense-city people really think that almost everyone really secretly wants to live this way and only buys into car culture because it's forced on them. While growing up in a particular environment obviously has a huge effect on your personal preferences, and people sometimes change their opinions after seeing or experiencing a different environment, I think they're discounting how many people really do like car culture, even after seeing the alternatives. My view is that car ownership is a luxury, and a car-based society has huge economic and ecological costs and is ultimately unsustainable outside of rural areas, and eventually more-efficient societies are going to outcompete car-based societies (or, they'll both be destroyed in an ecological collapse leading to general societal collapse). I think we're already seeing a lot of this with the US, where labor costs there are absolutely insane compared to the rest of the world.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#136

Post by pandaman »

Kbelicius wrote: post #134
pandaman wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tired meme and essentially an ad hominem "silly Americans never experienced civilization so they don't know better", often repeated by American "urbanists" too. I grew up in Moscow, USSR. With 2 min subway, trams, rail, buses and trolleybuses going everywhere. There was no private car ownership in the USSR until 1950s so nothing was built "for cars". Yet everyone dreamed of owning a car. There were films ab…

> This is a tired meme and essentially an ad hominem "silly Americans never experienced civilization so they don't know better" It has nothing to do whit Americans, nor did I imply it. Simply put, as it wasn't already simply put, my claim is that changing incentives changes peoples (not just Americans) wants. I would really like to hear why you think that that isn't true. I didn't even mention the US in my post, GP d…

Changing incentives does not change what people want, it can only change what people do, IME. And I am pretty sure I described why I think so in my post - the incentives in the USSR were against private ownership of cars yet people still wanted that, even though the vast majority could not afford them and kept using public transportation. It's not limited to cars though, people also want to live in big stand-alone houses but in many countries are forced to live in tiny apartment, for example. Does not mean they want to share room with their grandma and listen to what their neighbors are watching on TV, does it?

>It didn't occur to you that maybe back then people dreamed of owning a car because it was a novelty, a status symbol?

It could be for whatever reason, I am not a psychic to read people minds, for all I care they wanted cars because they liked the sounds they make with the horn. The empirical fact remains unchanged: people wanted cars despite the developed public transportation network and heavy burden of car ownership. Which is contrary to the "urbanists" claim that people only want cars because of the lacking public transportation and as soon as the latter becomes "good" people will abandon cars. Some might, some people still want cars. If you see footage of Tokyo, London or whatever place is touted as the public transportation paradaise, you will still see cars on the streets.

>Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks.

>I'm not saying that nobody wants or needs a car.

These two statements cannot be true at the same time, can they?

>Wow, everybody that doesn't dream of owning a car suffers anxiety or is an alcoholic... really?

Did you notice people on the Internet do these sound imitations in writing if and only if they cannot make a concise argument? It's rather peculiar. You can see somebody writing pretty well and making logical points until they can't and then, suddenly, it's "er,...,hhmmm, wow, ugh" etc?

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#137

Post by racional »

pandaman wrote: post #136
Kbelicius wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a tired meme and essentially an ad hominem "silly Americans never experienced civilization so they don't know better" It has nothing to do whit Americans, nor did I imply it. Simply put, as it wasn't already simply put, my claim is that changing incentives changes peoples (not just Americans) wants. I would really like to hear why you think that that isn't true. I didn't even mention the US in my post, GP d…

Changing incentives does not change what people want , it can only change what people do , IME. And I am pretty sure I described why I think so in my post - the incentives in the USSR were against private ownership of cars yet people still wanted that, even though the vast majority could not afford them and kept using public transportation. It's not limited to cars though, people also want to live in big stand-alone…

There was no "er,...,hhmmm, wow, ugh" in the commenter's post. To the extent that rambling and evasive rhetoric is being deployed here, it's coming from you.

First you made a plainly irrational (and basically pretty silly) assertion -- that the only people who don't want to own cars are anxiety cases and alcoholics. Right here, on the internet, in front of all these people. And so you got rightly cornered and called out for it.

You then followed that up by attributing a quote to person that you're responding to ("Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks") that they plainly didn't say, and then put it alongside something they did say, in order to claim they were making some kind of contradiction.

It's difficult to see what you might hope to accomplish with such tactics.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#138

Post by pandaman »

racional wrote: post #137
pandaman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Changing incentives does not change what people want , it can only change what people do , IME. And I am pretty sure I described why I think so in my post - the incentives in the USSR were against private ownership of cars yet people still wanted that, even though the vast majority could not afford them and kept using public transportation. It's not limited to cars though, people also want to live in big stand-alone…

There was no "er,...,hhmmm, wow, ugh" in the commenter's post. To the extent that rambling and evasive rhetoric is being deployed here, it's coming from you. First you made a plainly irrational (and basically pretty silly) assertion -- that the only people who don't want to own cars are anxiety cases and alcoholics. Right here, on the internet, in front of all these people. And so you got rightly cornered and called…

>There was no "er,...,hhmmm, wow, ugh" in the commenter's post

Why lie if a simple search can prove you wrong?

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#139

Post by fragmede »

rsynnott wrote: post #130
fragmede wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MTR Corporation out of Hong Kong runs trains for Stockholm, Sweden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation?wprov=sfti1#Sw...

I mean, that’s a public multinational which runs a rail system. You were originally talking about _building_ them.

different person

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#140

Post by nox101 »

rickydroll wrote: post #104
shiroiushi wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Japan, for instance, many train stations have small/medium/large shopping centers built on them. The train makes money not only by fares by but renting out the shops, running department stores, groceries stores, renting offices, apartments, etc... There's what I think is a positive feedback loop.' Yes, many of the transit companies in Japan are really more accurately described as real estate companies that own and o…

How does Japan deal with the convenience tax, that is, stores within a train station charging more for the same product than stores half a mile away? I remember passing through Portland Airport a few years ago and seeing signs saying the stores in the airport were legally prohibited from charging more than the retail prices found elsewhere in the city. Every time I go through a retail development in conjunction with…

I don't know how much more retail rental prices are but I haven't seen prices of products be higher at station stores. I can only guess, part of it might be culture and part of it might be there's so much competition. If you won't sell at a good prices the stand next to you will or the store just outside?

As for culture, maybe this is also competition but I've always been surprised that vending machines in Japanese hotels cost the same or not more than say 10 cents more than the convenience stores outside. A soda 500ml soda at the vending machine in the hotel is say $1.30 which is the same price at 7/11 or the vending machines outside. Where as in the USA, that same vending machine in the hotel would sell the same soda for $5-$8

I can only guess it's because there's a convenience store usually within a 2 minute walk of most hotels, open 24/7, and they're usually a relatively pleasant walk (vs walking across a huge stroad and giant parking lots like much of the USA). Still, the vending machine is more convenient so I'd expect a price hike but given I don't see one I suspect culture has something to do with it too?

Post reply on HN