Developed high speed rail since 2008 in China vs the US:
The silver lining of autocracy.
Why would a democratically elected leader plan for the long term if their sucessors, possibly from an opposition party, can claim credit for it.
In a dictatorship, they can plan for the long term, since they know they will be in power.
Also, the hyper-individualism in western countries doesn't make "working together" as a country easier. Just look at the anti-maskers and anti-vax people lol
And also, the big population in China would never allow for a "car culture" in the firsr place, since there just isn't room for that many cars, public transit is a must for a densely populated country.
the hyper-individualism in western countries doesn’t make “working together” as a country easier
I'd be careful with overgeneralizing that. Even though Latin American cultures also push for individualism to some extent, we do have tight-nit communities regardless because of the unified cultures that we have.
And also, the big population in China would never allow for a “car culture” in the firsr place, since there just isn’t room for that many cars, public transit is a must for a densely populated country.
I've been to China as part of a company visit. They took us everywhere by car. Even what I would consider walking distance.
I did not see mass transit once. It's entirely possible that it was there, but they just didn't let us use it for some reason. Were scared that we'd kill ourselves there or something.
Yeah that's what happens when all your manufacturing is outsourced there. China is insanely insanely rich now
For anyone who really likes driving:
More public transport = less people driving = less traffic = win-win situation for everyone
Fully agree and the US public transportation system is fucking pathetic.
What is "the US public transportation system"?
some cities have amtrak and it's expensive. there's also the private public transit system of greyhound, megabus, and the chinatown express network
Wouldn’t it be nice if this was people attitude and not “WHY SHOULD I BE PAYING TAXES FOR STUFF THAT I DONT USE”.
Why shouldn't people say that? We have a long list of other examples of bad transport investments, transport projects that cost for more than they will benefit society and so on. Show that this investment isn't a waste of money and I might be interested, but all I see is people who see transit as a way to shovel money their union and consultant donors. Clean up the our side of politics first.
“WHY SHOULD I BE PAYING TAXES FOR STUFF THAT I DONT USE”.
I'm on a citizen's advisory committee for a county's planning and development board... this can be answered rather easily in a way most posing the question haven't even considered. Approach the person like this: "So, you'll never use this thing, you like driving, but I'll bet you don't like traffic... every single solitary person riding on that new bus/light rail line, cycling on those new bike lanes, and walking on those new sidewalks is another car you're not going to be stuck behind in traffic. You personally come out ahead in this as well!"
Usually, they've never considered that traffic calming and alternative transport modes actually IS infrastructure from which motorists benefit. It's true that private vehicles aren't efficient as a means of mass transit, but they are convenient... it's the convenience factor where you can get car-brained folks to have a change of heart. The more you can emphasize that these improvements to other modes can make driving even slightly more convenient, the more they'll get on board with spending on them. Remember, these folks are already used to telling each other "I don't mind all the construction, that extra lane on that highway is needed." Half the time, this line of reasoning gets them on board or, at the very least, to stop outright opposing improvements.
America, the land of "i got mine"
I watched a few episodes of that recent show "Paradise," and as soon as I saw that they chose to make their giant bunker inside a mountain a fucking suburb with cars as the main form of transportation, I was like "fuck this..."
Then I remembered what time line we were on, and of course that's exactly something that the US government would do.
Could fit several times more people by building vertically, but instead fill it up with one-family homes with a quarter-acre backyard and swimming pool. Sounds about right.
Sorry, best we can do is shitty robotaxis and electric cars that lock you inside when they explode.
it's taken a few decades but seattle finally has really good light rail. every 10 minutes. you can get from the airport to the other side of the city for $4. it's not perfect, and doesn't go everywhere, but holy hell is it a giant upgrade for living in town.
Mmmmm. Grew up in Seattle, and finally having light rail is, of course, better than not having it.
But I've also lived in San Francisco, and I'm often frustrated by the unreliability and mismanagement of Seattle's system. Meltdown days seem about as common as non-meltdown days.
Reminder that transit will never take off unless there are written and unwritten rules of public decorum, and they are enforced. I live in New York and take the subway every day. There are obvious pros to doing so, which is why I do it, but you would have a hard time selling my experience to people not used to it. I regularly have to deal with shit you should never have to.
I've been to a bunch of places and probably taken a dozen different subways/metros, they are all way better behaved than here. East Asia is not even in the same ball park.
Who you vote for matters. Right not everyone votes for the democrats who want it this way and so that is what you get. You need to find/make a choice that cares about transit and vote for them. Good luck.
I still want self driving cars
Safe and reliable self driving cars, affordable and accessible high speed public transit, a smart grid that can handle a nationwide shift to renewables... I want so many things. But my expectations have never been lower for what we'll actually get.
I mean I can want two things.
Not having to drive myself to the hospital in a minor emergency where I'm alone would be nice, but even the friends and family discount at the local ambulance company is too expensive.
in my country during the day, you dont need to check schedules.
but then public transit is slow, uncomfortable and expensive.
they just made it frequent and to cover a big area because most of us cant afford cars but they still need us to get to work.
The US had voted against having this
During rush hour my city's transit comes every 15 minutes, 7.5 minutes on the shared line. I only used it for commuting. On the weekend I saw the train leaving and didn't worry but had to wait a while 30 minutes. Which sucked.
A train/bus every 30 minutes is fine for work - most people can plan their work day around that, so long as the schedule is reasonably consistent. However when going doing anything else there is too much risk that you will have to wait 29 minutes when you finish whatever it was you came to do and that is not acceptable to most people.
you see, if the City does that then it's the city's responsibility to maintain, both the infrastructure for transportation and the transportation itself. With cars, they only do infrastructure
car infrastructure is more expensive than public transportation
Sure, but you need some of that car infrastructure for trash collection, deliveries and such. In small towns that double duties for everything at no extra cost. Until you have a good network investments in public transit are bad as so few will ride that it isn't worth having at all - then suddenly you have a good network and people start riding.
Please Colorado ffs connect our major cities.
If Colorado expands public transit, it would be too OP. /j
Maybe if they did then they'd actually remember there is more to Colorado than just Denver area, sincerely, someone who lives an hour and half south of Pueblo.
You are going to get cities that allow oligarchs to extract as much money as possible from you. That's what you are going to get.
Agreed, traffic suck whether it jam or not
Woooo yeahhhh!
Same same.
I want people to understand that everybody's needs aren't the same as their own (and not just say they do before screaming something that proves they don't).
I don't know if that means you're pro or anti public transit.
Some people act like "I don't want to be around other people" is a "need".
I don't think a society should especially cater to the most anti social members, especially if that hurts most people.
I liked the metro rail until recently, when I caught the flu 3 consecutive times when using it.
If not wanting to be in a crowded space where - 30% of people are coughing around, not even caring to use a hanky to cover, while people having smoked so much, before entering, that even the cabin ventilators being at full blast, are not able to mitigate the stink - is considered anti-social, then yes, I am anti-social.
Face masks costing $2+ are wasted in a matter of 30 minutes, being filled with stink from cigarettes, if you are unlucky enough to get in the wrong cabin at the wrong time.
I'm still pro public transit though.
On the road, you will find smokers on the roadside, smokers in cars, smokers on bikes and cycles, all making it harder for one to get to work on their bicycle, without having to breathe that stuff.
It is to the point that I cannot consider going out cycling for leisure, because any fun I might get from an hour of cycling can be destroyed by a few seconds of choosing the wrong route.
You don't want self driving cars because you like trains.
I don't want self driving cars because I like driving.
We are not the same.
I don’t want self driving cars because I like driving.
transit options don't prevent you from driving. how is this an argument against, if anything it'd make congestion better for you.
Yeah I know. I’m on your side
If you make public transportation safe and efficient, even reliable, people won't need cars.
I'd rather sit on a train or a bus and read, rather than drive on the same roads with the crazy liberals and conservatives.
Oh wait, I'd be stuck inside metal tube with them instead. I better stay home then. Damn.
Can we get free chocolate bars with the tickets too.
I want something that takes me straight to my destination so my hurting ass self doesn't have to walk far. Driven by me so I won't get motion sickness. With a trunk so I can put a bunch of crap in there and not have to carry it all the way back while walking and riding a goddamn train.
Oh, right, I want cars. Anything else is short-sighted and ableist. I'm sure you're going to hate me and mod me down and silence me and all sorts of crap for this viewpoint, but holy fuck, how do you not understand that this is a perfectly valid view? If you're special and can walk and carry tons of shit, good on you, I'm so proud of you. Many are not. And when you destroy the ability to drive and park somewhere in your urban "utopias" because they cater to your special ass, it screws US over.
Spoken like a true ableist. Fuck the blind, fuck the old, fuck kids. You want cars!
You can have one lane roads and a paid underground Mr fuck everyone that can drive. Cars take too much space and kill too many people.
Go visit a developed city, like Munich, see how even 70+ old can live perfectly well without using a car. They got carts to carry shit and good sidewalks.
They take up space because HUMANS TAKE UP SPACE. You tend to think of cars as automatons. This is your fucking fascist bent, right here. You dehumanize cars as something horrible and anti-human when it's human beings who drive them and benefit from them. Gives them FREEDOM. ACCESS. RIGHTS.
Just because you look at a small section of healthy 70+ year olds doesn't invalidate my point. "Look at these happy brown hair blue eyed white people, they're not being oppressed in Nazi Germany! What are you complaining about?"
Fascists.
Wait, but both can coexist. This post is only hoping to abolish the "cars as default" mentality as it says. And it's not even a utopian dream when many places have both options readily available and well-furnished. I think you're going off without need there. But honestly, valid points. Some people do need personal vehicles and it's good to aim for a comprehensive view of transportation.
You're right, not building society around your preferences and convenience is literal fascism and anybody who care about safety or the environment is just fundamentally evil. The cruelty is the point.
Nah it's your attitude that will be hated and "modded down".
My attitude? Hating oppression isn't a bad thing. Look up the paradox of tolerance. You anti-car, pro-walking shitlords are opressing people with disabilities and other issues. And no, unlike some people claim, it's not about "coexistence". It's about TAKING OVER PUBLIC SPACES WITH YOUR ANTI-CAR PLANS.
You're just as bad as people like the Orange Turd and Elon Stark. Get over it and start realizing that what you're doing is, plain and simple, ableist. You're being intolerant. Plain and simple. If you are fine with being intolerant, get in line with the rest of the fascists and stop pretending.
That's great. If you are in the US it isn't going to happen at a meaningful scale. Best we can do is larger scale self driving mini busses for public transport and single user self driving vehicles for expediancies. Use existing infrastructure but work to eliminate human driving (save that for track driving for pleasure) and enforce heavy pedestrian priorities so foot traffic and bicycling becomes easier and safer.
I've heard this said a lot, and I'm not necessarily doubting its true, but what's the reason behind the richest country in the world not being able to build good public transport? Large countries like China yave good public transport, and the continent of Europe has great trains- is it just the USA's size combined with its lack of public infrastructure in general?
All the wealth is concentrated in the hands of selfish pricks who don't give a shit. Why advocate for high speed rail when you have a private jet?
Also making people waste time in traffic is probably good for the ownership class. You're not organizing if you're stuck in your car.
Low taxes so nothing goes to infrastructure
unless the trains could use the existing land building the rail would be extremely costly due in part to the slowness of emminent domain and the us actually having functional property rights that make it hard to take land from people (those that can afford lawyers). coupled with the large number of citys with populations under 100,000 buses are generally going to work better here.
If you are in the US it isn't going to happen at a meaningful scale.
Your defeatism mindset is a large part of why it's not happening right now. Stop posting this shit so that progress can actually be made.
I'd rather direct progress in a meaningful direction. My attitude isn't breaking trains coming to the US. Autonomous vehicles are way behind where they should be for meaningful progress and fear and misunderstanding is the only real obstacle there.
It might happen. Manhattan just introduced congestion charges and it apparently made a big difference.
And places that we now think of as bike and public transit focused cities in Europe were very car-centric in the 70s. I don't know why or how they changed, but they did.
One of the most annoying things is cities that were designed pre-car being retrofitted for car, and then people acting like that's the city's fault for not making the city better for car, rather than the city's fault for not assessing their situation and emphasizing other methods of getting from place to place
Or similarily, the whole world being walkable before the incredibly recent invention of cars and yet people still act like there’s no way to be without a vehicle. Like, even when cars were first coming out cities were already dense and had public transit that was working fine and many still do today.
Or “my town is small that’s why everything is far apart” my friend you have fewer things than I do in the city, within walking distance, and need a car to get to them all like how does that make any sense?! Put that shit together into a nice little walkable village! I’m from a village like that and I’m from goddamn Ontario! It’s awesome!
I hate when people who live in some crap suburb cannot even imagine—not even imagine; simply see—that there are better ways of doing this shit.
Or “my town is small that’s why everything is far apart”
Everything is far apart because the streets are too wide. This dates back to the 1780s, it's actually older than cars, and it was what made people adopt cars in the first place - for instance, Manhattan already had its car-sized streets of their current size way, way before cars were invented.
In the long term, the problem is the street grid itself - squish everything closer together and everything will be nicer to walk to (because it's human-scale), closer to walk to in the first place, and cheaper to maintain.
In NL cities where not car focussed then some became more car focussed, we saw that that was wrong and started changing back.
One more lane! /S
wHy Is ThErE nEvEr EnOuGh StReEt PaRkInG
I’d like for where I lived in Denver to be simply walkable. Or safely bikable. I was living in a pretty urban area in SW Denver proper and my car was lost to a collision, so I started walking everywhere. Great area for that, theoretically - I was surrounded by Asian and Central American markets, convenience stores, liquor stores, dispensaries, local restaurants, all within about a mile. However, the major roads nearby were stroads. Crossing at crosswalks was much more dangerous than just wiring for cars to disperse and running across in the middle of the block.
Worse though, I was near a kinda fun hipster shopping and bar area, but there was this horrific freeway/highway/stroad exchange where you had to go across something like 6 roads and exit ramps. It was the most pedestrian unfriendly thing I’d ever seen, and coincidentally it divided a more affluent white section of town from the Hispanic area.
"Coincidentally"
I think Denver is the least walkable city I've ever been in. Was there a few years back and was floored by how hard it was to get anywhere as a tourist without a ride share
Really depends on the part of town. It definitely wasn't built with pedestrian or bicycle access in mind when Denver expanded in the 60s-80s, but no city in the US was back then, really. If you're in a dense area like Cap Hill, it's great. Overall Denver is set up the same as most western cities, like LA, Phoenix, Albuquerque, but for the most part is better than those. If you want something really horrible try suburbs of Houston where they don't even have sidewalks.
I live in downtown Denver and haven’t driven in 12+ years, and rarely (maybe 4x a year) use rideshares. I’m not sure where your plans took you, but there are many of us living comfortably in Denver without a car.
