Their chief priority is profit, isolation and creating a sense of elitism. Public transit is incompatible with all that. So we need buses that are set up like casinos with live bands
Public transit is incompatible with all that.
"Take that, you lowlifes! I don't stay in same cabin as you filthy people, because I am have a gold card that lets me travel to work with way more comfort than you!"
Look, I know I'll never be allowed in the gold card room, but if that's what it takes to get robust public transit in the U.S., I'm good with it.
There are some countries that offer a more luxurious experience on the rails by offering higher class cabins, similar to an airline.
I think the real reason is because they're hooked on Lighting McQueen R34.
Or at least, I feel morally fine with dropping that accusation.
Carcels vs. trainchads
The previous Italian government appointed Cingolani, someone with strong ties to ENI (an infamous Italian multinational energy company with a history of oil leaks and bribes) to the the so-called "ecological transition".
The current Italian government has cut the subsidies for public transportation and has announced public funding for a renewal of privately-owned cars.
There is no way out of this. The last CEO will die whispering, "profits are up, though."
to be fair the current italian government are also fascists
I read in a book that the current system of drivers acting on their own without something coordinating their every move is actually 75% as efficient as a fully coordinated system.
Therefore, the benefit obtained with all people using self driving cars is nothing compared to just improving public transit or improving car infrastructure.
I don't know what book that was or what metrics its using, but my local intersections could easily pass 3x the current number of cars per green light if they accelerated together, and right away.
The number of people who poorly merge and cause traffic shockwaves, how slow cars drive in the fast lane, the accidents caused by human error. Really curious how they came to that 75% number.
I was slightly wrong. From page 237 of Algorithms to Live By, The Computer Science of Human Decisions by Brian Christian and Tom Griffiths, further referencing the paper How Bad is Selfish Routing? by Roughgarden and Tardos, it says that
"...the "selfish routing" approach [of cars] has a price of anarchy that's a mere 4/3. That is, a free-for-all is only 33% worse than perfect top-down coordination."
Anyways, the way they got to that number is mathematical game theory. In this case people will choose the fastest route which happens to not be so bad.
It's also very possible that what they're concluding is significantly abstracted, but I haven't read the source reference to know for sure.
Just the number of people being moved on a bus or light rail for a given amount of space tosses that efficiently number away.
That's on the macro level with decision making. I think, coordinated has another advantage on the micro level, the traffic jams will move as one without waiting for information spread from the head, the accidents are less likely to happen and jam even more.
Having said that, I'd still prefer a good and technologically advanced tram network to any amount of cars 🥲
I don't think cars are ever going away, even if public is the main transportation method. Which obviously sucks, but it's the way it is.
I've always imagined a protocol that lets cars communicate their planned speed. I'm pretty sure this is how cars will work in the future. A decentralized mesh of coordinated vehicles. This means that cars can:
Public is obviously the best option though. Imagine a city with no streets, only subterranean public transportation. You wouldn't even need such a large public transportation system, cities would be a fraction of the current size. I wonder what percentage of the area of a city is wasted on streets.
With a few exceptions, US housing is so sprawled out that I don't know how we could do an effective train system. As things presently stand where I live, there's a decent train system, but most people have to travel several miles to get to the nearest station. For many, the park and ride concept works ok, so I suppose that reduces traffic a little bit.
I work in a corridor that lies between two lines with no public transportation anywhere near it.
I guess adding a shiton of buses from residential neighborhoods to train stations would help, but the time that would take would meet with enormous resistance from those who would rather sit in stop and go traffic in the comfort of their giant eighty thousand dollar pickup trucks (in which they are invariably up to their ears in debt)
Under current infrastructure, my twenty minute commute would take over three hours each way on public transportation, and I'd have to be in good enough shape to ride a bike a couple miles to the nearest bus stop, not taking rain snow ice or sweltering summer heat into consideration.
It can be better, but I don't know that it can be ideal as suggested in the OP without compelling several million people to move closer to the city center.
It takes me a good 15 minutes just to walk out of my large subdivision. And then we're outside of city limits and down a country road (there are corn fields), so it would probably take me another half an hour to 45 minutes just to get to a place where a train is feasible, let alone has a station there. And there's no sidewalks.
There's a city bus now. If we wanted to ride it, and we would, it's a 5 mile walk. And crossing a four-lane highway would be required.
I would love a robust U.S. train network, but it wouldn't help me get groceries from the supermarket to my house and I sure as hell wouldn't want to make that walk in the middle of February around here. Cars are just going to be needed in the U.S. for all the people who don't live in cities.
Indeed, that's also partially a problem outside of the US in more rural parts of many countries. If governments made moving closer to the city center more compelling then I'm sure that lots of people would do so naturally with time. But that would require some actual thought, lots of planning, time and money. It's not easy to un-fuck decades of bad city planning, especially in the US with it's myriad of other, connected problems.
That’s a tram
That is 100% a streetcar.
77a? I guess that'd be okay. But I want 77b on the T-T-TTC
T R A M
the line between train and tram is very blurry
Trains are the perfect solution to move people between hubs, but it still doesn't solve for the last mile problem - which could be solved very effectively with self driving cars (buses, bikes and scooters can work too but based on the usage it can be a mix of all).
I would love a self driving car that would drop me off at the train station, then take itself back home until I return.
The last mile problem exists for cars too, we just don't think of parking in that way.
This description of self-driving cars sounds like taxis, but less resource efficient, more error prone, and exclusive to those who can afford to own one.
Additionally, trams/streetcars have been solving the last mile problem since the 1800s. Sure, you run the risk of needing to walk 5 minutes instead of being driven straight to your destination, but I really don't see how that justifies paving over millions of acres of land merely to have a convenient place to stick our cars.
the last mile problem is trivially solved by bus lines, bicycles, and just walking using the legs god gave you
It'd make more sense for it to give other people rides to/from the station when you're not using it. Public self driving cars.
Hey the Queens Quay streetcar. I recognize it even though the pic is slightly deep fried.
Does train come pick me up and drop me off again ?
Gotta love dem rural trains.
They could if people funded them well enough to do so.
Yes. There even used to be a robust public transportation infrastructure here where I live in South Dakota, long ago before everything became so car-centric. Buses and trains. I used to ride the bus to Minnesota to work in the fields. Get off my lawn!
Don't believe the people who say we can't sustain it. That's their carbrain talking. It's been done before. We just need to prioritize it.
Well no. I live rural. So rural we don't have pedestrian walkways or anything.
I'm not anti public transportation. I'm pro pro pro. However trains don't help rural. Rural get shafted on most things. No broadband no sewage no bin pick up. You have to drive.
I fucking hate driving. I would happily sit on any number of vehicles. It's just not feasible unfortunately.
The country I currently reside in has no trains. Relies on planes which is beyond infuriating
I have family who live in rural Norway, and yeah -- they drive to the train station. Still a big improvement over having to drive all the way to work or the store.
And yeah-- I'm talking about small tiny towns having buses and trains. Look at a map of South Dakota. That's the state where I live, and we had them.
Most routes do not run just 1 way.
If it’s nationalized, yes.
rural trains are amazing, on the branch line near me there are stations in the middle of nowhere with like maybe 50 people tops within bike distance of the station, it's absolutely idyllic.
imagine living like that and being able to just step into a moving building that takes you to a big city full of amenities, it's so good.
We must stop all progress until we can come up with a solution that includes less than 20% of the population.
It already takes me an hour to get to work from my rural home. You wanna make it two?
Public transport is good, but has it's own problems. You can't bring the sort of goods you can with your own transport (or you have to rely on the store to do it, which still leaves the problem of cars on the road). They become superspreader events during flu/covid season. If you have to take care of an elderly family member, they may have problems getting on them and finding seats, which can become a health hazard for them. Scooters have also been banned from some forms of public transport due to the risk of poor quality poorly maintained lithium batteries exploding, which still leaves the last mile problem.
This is a problem of design. You're saying PT is bad because cities make shit choices.
Sure! But like I'd happily pay the 2k per year I pay to maintain a car + amortised cost of a car + insurance to have better PT with like room for cargo and shit. Also not like nearly die every day because of insane tailgaters et al. and free up road space for housing or parks or whatever.
my mom brings home our christmas tree from her SO's forest every year, takes it on the train and on the bus without issue.
1 delivery vehicle delivering packages to many addresses does not still leave the problem of cars on the road, it can make it a lot smaller if people then cycle walk and us PT more.
There was a young man who said, "Damn!
It is borne upon me that I am
An engine that moves
In predestinate grooves;
I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram."
Who are these "some people". I don't think it's a majority. In fact most comments I see say the opposite.
Corporate propaganda is the "some people." Electric/self-driving cars are more profitable than fixing or expanding public transit.
Lemmy faces selection bias, of course most people here are more partial towards public transit
But the general public is more mixed, and the technosphere of silicon valley etc very much favours the former.
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
