[meme] Trains are 100000x easier to electrify and automate than cars, so why does everyone keep talking about electric and driverless cars?
[meme] Trains are 100000x easier to electrify and automate than cars, so why does everyone keep talking about electric and driverless cars?
You're viewing a single thread.
Running errands on public transport is an absolute nightmare. Imagine having appointments, hauling bags of groceries and maybe even having a child or pet on a leash, all while trying to catch busses and trains. Public transport is great to get a lot of people to a common place, but that's about it. Its not exactly cheap either. Where I live, a single one direction train ticket costs roughly as much as 2 liters (~½ Gallon) of gas. 2 liters can get me in and out of the downtown area about 3-5 times, depending on traffic. Or once with an hour of parking. If an electric vehicle would fall out of the sky into my lap and the only thing I had to care about is fuel (electricity) I'd definetly would save money and time compared to public transport. Public transport is absolutely necessary, but not the solution for everything.
I see people doing all the things you list on the trains and busses in London all the time.
Doesn't mean it's not a nightmare, and that doing it with a car wouldn't be easier. Try doing this with two toddlers one day, lol, I promise you it's not as easy as watching someone else do it.
Depending on how rowdy kids are, it's not even easy in the car. You're strapped in, focused on roads, and any "incidents" they incur may require you to pull over.
The other thing about public transit heavy cities is, in order for people to use them, they have to be much more walkable - in other words, not wasting their wide open space with eight-land roads, or ocean-sized parking lots. That also means, if all you're going out for is groceries, it would be a waste of time to get in a car, or a train; just walk to a grocery store and back. Plus, if the trip genuinely does work out conveniently, you would not need to buy huge quantities in bulk each trip - just take multiple short trips through the week.
I happen to have a somewhat lucky city living situation, and this is pretty much how it works out for me. Sometimes when someone visits me, they offer to drive me to the grocery store, and it's basically just as much hassle as walking, thanks to the pedestrian underpass I normally take home.
I can fully understand your position. People in big and densely packed cities profit a lot from proper public transport and vice versa. Plus the city itself is layed out to function with public commute in mind, I've experienced it personally in New York. I'm from a rural area. Our public transport system can't fully replace cars. The main transit traffic is concentrated around rush hour in the morning and evening. To provide most people with public commute would require an immense increase in busses and train lines, only for 80% to be idle during low traffic hours.
There's often a visual comparison between how many people a full car and bus can carry. Obviously the bus wins. But you rarely see the comparision between the space needed for a single empty car or bus to be parked. Cars can park on the side of the road or have a parking lot on location (even underground). Busses need ports and infrastructure. Trains are an even bigger problem to store. Their ports can easily take up a good chunk of the entire city. That's why there's always a financial incentive to have too little busses or trains than too many. People can tolerate waiting, but can't tolerate higher prices to sustain a surplus on transport.
Also, public transport is often confined to local bubbles. Go outside your bubble and things start to get messy. When I was in High School, we had about ¼ of our class commute every day from one city over. They were either way to early or always late, because one cities train and bus plan wasn't tuned to the others, resulting in people either having to get up about 2 hours before school starts at 7 am to catch a train or run the risk of missing their bus connection to the school. It's even worse if you are crossing train districts and have to buy multiple tickets. When I was in college, some people came from another major city about 40km away. Their district covered half the state therefore their price was ~300€ per month and additionaly they had to pay 90€ per month for our smaller district. And both of those were the reduced prices for students. I could leave my car running idle for 20 days straight for that price.
EWs are important because cars are never going to be replaced by even the best public transport systems. But at least with could reduce the amount of cancer we get from sitting in traffic and breathing commute air. If I could choose, I'd rather have a power plant spit out steam and gas through state of the art filters somewhere in the outskirts, than to be surrounded by combusted gasoline resedue all day.
Part of the problem with American public tranist is cities assume the transit to be directly profitable. Tramsit functions best when heavily subsidized (just like car infrastructure is). The value brought by transit it terms of property value and connectivity will outweigh the cost of subsidizing it.
I doubt the US even has a say in these dissussions. Their intercity train system is mostly commercial to transport goods from coast to coast or border to border. Sparse availability of public trains means spending roughly the same on 48 hours train ride or a 1 hour plane flight. Building a single highway trough dessert heat of the Midwest is already a toll, but building a countrywide train system would, even if subsidized with the full military budget still be a nearly impossible task. Furthermore you have 50% of the population screaming to stop this socialist nonsense. There are enough examples of unfinished train sections that show what happens if money runs out.
And one might ask them self, how did the US get from cowboys and farms to the beacon of technical advancement? The answer is oil and slaves. They played dirty for 200 years and got ahead. So how does the entirity of Europe have a extensive network of rails spanning millions of kilometers? Was it because they where built before unions and labor rights were a thing? Turns out multi continental projects were mostly achieved through human suffering and disregard for safety. None of which goes nowadays to the same extend as back then. If a project isn't finished within one legislative period, why even start? Policaly you won't reap the fruits of your labor.
I know I'm exagarting, but the principle is simple. The early bird gets the worm. Europe has their trains and the US has their cars. Better to let each one figure out their own thing and then share the knowledge.
The system does not need to just suddenly be country wide. There are many major population centers within the same state or neighboring states that could greatly benefit from high speed rail connection. In this meme's argument trams serve a similar purpose and could be implemented much more locally. Many rail lines have a troubling past but we should not use that as an excuse to not build new ones with modern labor and safety standards.
I can only speak from the experience I have, which is New York and Flint, Michigan. Both are obvious contrasts between one of the richest and poorest cities in the US. New York has maybe one of the best Subway systems in the world. Having a car in NYC is insane. Everything that isn't covered by bus or train, is bridged by rentable bikes on each corner of a block. Flint could desperately use a couple of busses and a tram, but they can barely afford to keep their river and parks clean of (hopefully) dog poop. I remember seeing tram rails on the road but they where in an inoperable state. The north and west coast has a decent railroad system already but its basically inaccesible without having a car taking you to and from the station. It really felt like each city in the north was fending for their own. A bus system is quite the investment for a city. You can't just start with a couple of busses and then expand. Otherwise you are running the risk of it being the first thing people point fingers at, once city funds run dry.
A lot governments in the world push for increased public transport spending on the federal level. But it seems everybody is to busy trying to put out political fires to properly appropriate state funds. And if they are approved its often half assed and the cities have to make due with what the have anyway. It's the same in my country, I bet its the same in the US. Just because the urgency increased, doesn't mean the capability did es well.
As an examlme of intercity travel, the average annual milage for cars in Michigan is ~12,370 miles . Let's say that's mostly work commute (which from my experience, it is) so that's roughly 50 miles a day during week days. A US class I railroad trains average speed is ~25 mph, a cars about 50 mph (source: readout from my car back during my stay). You'll spend roughly twice the amount of time on your commute. Thats excluding the fact that a car goes door to door and not station to station.
In rural areas of the US a local bus and tram system would surely improve the life of some people. But its not enough of a reason for Americans to change their car culture or for cities to put some money on the table.
First lets start with the obligatory mention that thanks to zoning laws in the US you are even in this predicament. My grocery store is like just a few hundred metres from my apartment and on my way from work. Instead of weekly shopping I just do it daily / every other day with just the few things I need for those few days. No for hauling grocery bags. And like you wouldn't go shopping before appointments either...
Also you completely forget to factor in the cost of owning an maintaining a car. A yearly ticket for public transport for me is around 500€. I don't own a car so my expense on public transport is just that 500€ with a bit more for holiday trips etc compared to the cost of buying a car every X years, paying for maintenance, and for fuel.
I'm in Europe, not in the US. You are very fortunate to be living in a way that doesn't require a car. That's not the case for most people. Here, we have a lot of smaller towns and ignoring backeries, they have zero places that sell food. I see a lot of elderly people commute by bus for daily grocery shopping. But in this heat, they are in serious danger spending that much time in barely climate controlled busses and trains. Mostly, somebody from their families swings by once a week to fill up their fridge. The most common scenario is a family, both adults working 9-5, 1-2 children school aged. With children and jobs most people don't have the time to do daily grocery trips. That's why shops are usually overfilled on Friday evenings and Satruday mornings (I worked those shifts in retail). From my experience growing up, a full week of groceries for a mid sized family is impossible to carry by hand. Also from my experience, public transport is a godsend if you live alone and are tight on money. It takes the burden of maintanig a vehicle of your back. But in a family or a close circle of friends, a car is usually a communal workhorse, used by everyone for everything to avoid the hassle of public transport.
i agree with everything you said, but i do have to say that the problem with Europe isn't proving that public transport isn't that good(i know that's not what you're saying but I can't think of any other way of wording it rn), but rather than the city planning is... unfortunate
Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. In r/fuckcars and also here the term "car centric" and "pedestrian centric" cities is thrown around a lot. Europe is often praised for being build before cars were invented and is therefore naturally friendlier towards pedestrians. But it's not like busses are hovering above the buildings, they are as much car as an SUV, even bigger and bulkier. They have to squish themselves around tight corners. Whole roads get turned into one way streets because a new bus line was opened and now a bus and a car wouldn't be able to pass each other in this medival inner city alley. Public transport requires infrastructure, which means property has to be acquired. One douche not wanting to sell his shed to the city, can grind a whole project into halt. Even if the government took extensive action to invest into public transport, there's only so much they can do. And theres a long line of burrocracy between cause and effect.
In my city at least, I've never experienced the government trying to cull the public transport, there's been a steady improvement over the past 15 years. New lines, Better busses (also electric ones) have been added. Busses have their own traffic lights to give them time to de- and accelerate. But the city is literary at its capacity. It has reached the point of diminishing returns for public transport.
People do that all the time on transit, groceries are the biggest problem though.
You're forgetting the cost of buying the vehicle, maintaining it, and perhaps parking it. You can't leave those out and then say driving is cheaper.
I personally consider the price of the car as the privilege of ownership. Its not like you can change the color of the train if you don't like it or throw you trash in the corner. If the train is to slow, you can't put a turbo in it. Plus, you can always sell you car, but you can't sell your used train tickets.
I've owned my car current car for roughly 4 years now. I got it used and it lost about -1,000€ in value. Maintance is incredibly low, roughly -300€ in total. Insurance was the big money drainer with about -2000€ in total, but I got in a couple of minor fender benders that weren't my fault and only resulted in scratched plastic so I got a payout of about +1300€. So in total, if I were to sell it right now, my car my car cost me 500€ annually over the course of 4 years (fuel exluded). Thats a fair price for the freedom a car gives you.
But there are certain situation that essentialy prohibit using a car. Getting to the airport is far easier by bus (my city has a direct line) and you don't have to pay for weeks of parking. Late night bus lines make going out to parties and clubs actually enjoyable, because you don't have to leave your car in a shady part of town over night. Parking is another problem. The US feels like 80% parking space but Europe doesn't have that. The biggest parking area in my city is basically right at the central bus hub. So it wouldn't make any difference time wise to go by car. But thanks to 20 traffic lights, riding a bicycle doesn't either.
Bicyles are like the best extension to public transit. And its highly undervalued. I'd rather have them reduce prices for train tickets that include a bike, than build more train lines. Currently they are nearly twice as expensive as normal tickets (because a bike takes up more space I guess).
You can sell it and then it's called depreciation from use anyway. It's cost of ownership. You can't ignore it and say it's cost of gas only.
I didn't say it cost gas only. Quite the opposite, I ignored the gas cost and shown only my rough cost of ownership. It's just the fact that the huge entry price of buying a car is put in parallel to low ticket prices, when really, it shouldn't. Otherwise you could also add the cost of shoes and clothes to the train ticket, because well you can't exactly ride a train barefoot and in your undies. And all the food for the energy spend walking from station to station, can't forget that.
Yes a decent car can cost between 5 - 10K used, but if you take care of it you will get most of that money back. And I'm not talking about SUVs or Pickup Trucks, but compact hatchbacks with 30mpg or 6-7L per 100km. The engines easily last 10+ years with regular but minor maintanace. 2000s Honda Civics and Toyota Corollas can easily outlast multiple generations of trains and busses.
My city has gone through 4 generations of bus fleets while my buddies dad still rocks a VW T4 camper probably on his 2nd milage gauge loop. We figured out how to make the perfect car in 1993 when McLaren build the F1. Nothing beats low weight and a reliable engine. The big mistake was letting heavy SUVs become the go to car for everybody. Historicaly speaking, it's an overcorrection from the US being invaded by small cheap and reliable Japanese hatchbacks in the 90s. An that I itself was an overcorrection form gigantic 20 feet long cars from the 70s and 80s. SUVs and Pickup Trucks are like a fashion trend, they are not here to stay. Slick E-vehicles seem to be the newest trend, they just haven't fully found the shape they want to be in yet.
From the point of physics, a train weighs hundreds of tons and is pulling another hundreds of tons of weight. A hatchback weight 1-2 tons. They work on the same principles. They need energy to accelerate their mass. Trains need to carry a lot of people to break even otherwise they are just pulling themselves for nothing. You should be uncomfortable having a whole cart to yourself. Sure a car might be 100 times lighter but the train can carry 200 times more people at max capacity. Max capacity being an important factor. Most trains travel way below that. Remove all the traffic lights and hills from a cars path and it will be just as efficient as a train. Trains are just really good mass haulers.
One of the major advantages that trains have over cars is their electric engine. Electric engines have an efficiency of roughly 80 - 90% for transferring energy into motion. Car engines only 20 - 40%. And combustion engine are at their economical limit. Putting electric engines in cars is putting them directly on par with trains.
Thats why we shift towards EVs, because we already have everything but the batteries and charging figured out anyway. Public transport is a political issue, EVs are an engineering and marketing issue.
Jeez I'm not reading all that. You have now twice tried to discount the cost of the vehicle. First you wanted to account only for gas. Second you wanted to call it "privilege", yes you then broke it down for some reason but you want to call it a "privilege" and not account for its cost in the actual transportation.
Fair enough. I realize that I mixed up owning a car, and being able to afford one. I double checked, and, one can own a car in my country while having low or no income and live in subsidized housing. But the value of the car is limited to a certain amount. So I stand corrected, technically "No" owning a car is not a privilege but is considered a basic necessary by our government. But thats only the case if you start collecting financial aid and already have a car. You won't be able to afford to buy one with the aid alone.
I was fortunate enough to have my parents pay upfront for my first car that I couldn't afford while I was in college. I paid them back in full over 2 years and didn't have to pay intrest to a bank. I call that privilege.
Groceries are solved by having smaller but more frequent supermarkets, I can walk to 3 different ones from my house including one that's literally 2/3min walk away (and I live in the countryside), we go daily so we can just carry it back because it's smaller groceries. If bigger, personal carts exist and are gaining popularity around here.
I think grocery delivery is the more likely and better.
Yeah that would definitely be easier to implement in North America, due to the current layouts, I was talking about my own environment in Europe.
If that's what already happens, then there's no issue to be solved.