> Public transportation doesn't scale this especially well, as anybody using public transport knows, but this article is a nice summary

Then how do cities like Singapore, with a population density of nearly 8k people per square km, have far less traffic than pretty much any major US city? They make public transportation work, and if you've ever been there, you'd know it works really well.

Just because western countries haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean that it can't work at all. Public transportation in the US sucks because the US, as a whole, wants it to suck.

> Public transportation in the US sucks because the US, as a whole, wants it to suck.

Rather, public transportation sucks, so everyone who can afford a car (and some who can't) buy a car and use it, so they don't care very much that public transportation sucks; they instead are annoyed that private transportation sucks and want that to improve (e.g. by having an AI deal with driving). They don't see public transportation as a solution to the problem they experience, even if it would solve the problem that brought them into that situation.

FWIW, I have always relied on public transportation in any western country I have been to and while it could have been better sometimes (e.g. rural bus schedules requiring you to plan around them) I don't think it's too bad either. I don't know how Singapore compares, but usable public transportation is definitely also common elsewhere.

By the way, what about the victims of this public transport attitude ? Such as this making it impossible for disabled and elderly to do groceries ?

(and let's not forget things like Amazon just don't work unless they exploit delivery men if you do choose to answer this question)

Are you implying that public transport, which in Europe is required to have accessibility measures like ramps and elevators, is worse for someone in a wheelchair than a regular car they would never fit in (let alone in the driver seat)? Most elderly also benefit from the same measures.

EDIT: I don't really understand the Amazon question. Maybe I didn't understand the original question either.

1) Cars are accessible for wheelchair users (obviously they are modified for this purpose, which is less than you'd think) [1] [2] [3]

2) public transport is not wheelchair accessible. We have trains from the 70s on the track, and aside from multiple steps and a gap, there are no places for wheelchairs. Buses are a little better, but not really usable either. When push comes to shove, this requires people to lift the wheelchair and put it on the train/bus, then help you on the bus as well. If bystanders don't do this, I guarantee out here the driver won't either. For trains, you are supremely unlikely to find anyone of the public transport companies in the station, and nobody helping wheelchair bound people on the bus. Plus, you never, ever see wheelchairs on the train.

Note that if you look at the videos below you see that in most cases, disabled people need (much) more time to get aboard a vehicle. This is not available in public transport and is available in private cars.

Furthermore, wheelchair users (as visible in the second video) (and obviously only up to a certain level of disability) are not just able to use cars, but are able to carry and move heavy loads using them, like groceries.

So once again, an argument in favor of cars once a good look at reality is added to it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0usQ1LksSA

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTuMw6rtsxA

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvvQOeBDfY

The fact you talk about “public transport” makes me think you’re British, in which case when you say

> We have trains from the 70s on the track, and aside from multiple steps and a gap, there are no places for wheelchairs

you’re wrong. The only 1970s train still in widespread use is the HST. These have generally been refitted with wheelchair spaces: it’s in carriage C on a GWR HST, for example.

Besides, HSTs are being either replaced or hugely refurbished (power doors etc.) by 2020 - because really serious accessibility regulations come into force then (RVAR). Entire fleets of 80s trains (Pacers) are being scrapped because of this. The British railways are already good for accessibility, and getting much better.

Your whole argument is just trivially disprovable. Both trains and buses can be wheelchair accessible[1][2]. You don't need to lift the chair, you just roll it in, either up a slight incline in the case of buses or completely flat in the case of trains. No need for bystanders or station attendants to help.

[1] https://cdn.londonandpartners.com/visit/london-organisations...

[2] http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1TZlXmiSe3I/UTcdowZY8hI/AAAAAAAAH3...

Googling around a bit

Dutch train: https://www.seat61.com/images/Russia-austrian-ext.jpg

Swiss train: http://citytransport.info/Digi/3253.jpg

British train: https://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Products-Services/Regional-Pas...

Eurostar: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/14/15/2C4DBFB70000057...

(I've used these Eurostar trains. If you have to get on with a wheelchair ... good luck. It's frankly too hard for perfectly normal people and pretty much all young kids have a lot of trouble)

Oh and as for London buses: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/driver-in-angry-co...

I will generally agree that London is a positive exception. Mostly because everything else in Europe is utterly inaccessible for wheelchair users. Unfortunately, even with that there isn't all that much that is accessible.

Let's just all sanely agree that obviously cars are a lot more wheelchair accessible than public transport, with a few small and limited exceptions. And even within those exceptions, public transport does not provide the services a car can give.

That's not obvious at all. For cars to be accessible, the car needs to be designed to be accessible. For public transportation to be accessible, it needs to be designed to be accessible. The situations are identical.

Here in the US, all public transportation is required by law to be wheelchair accessible. Perhaps Europe is different, but that is a decision that they have made, it is not an inherent limitation of public transportation.

Cars are not inherently wheelchair friendly; they must be designed to accommodate them. Trains and buses are exactly the same. Here at least, public transport is much more accessible than private vehicles because all public transportation must be wheelchair accessible, but there is no such requirement for private vehicles.

Accessibility measures:

Netherlands:

http://www.accessibletravelnl.com/blogs/Trains-in-the-Nether...

Switzerland:

https://www.sbb.ch/en/station-services/passengers-with-reduc...

Britain:

http://www.britrail.com/plan-your-trip/passengers-needing-as...

Eurostar:

https://wheelchairtravel.org/review-eurostar-train-london-to...

I especially encourage you to look at the picture of the ramp in the last article. The Eurostar may be difficult to board for normal people, but if someone in a wheelchair calls in advance, they get all the assistance they need.

The article you linked for London buses is just people being inconsiderate and needing to be told to behave. That could have happened just as well with someone blocking a parking lot reserved for disabled people.

Just read through the Dutch accessibility article and ... I find it incredibly hard to believe that a system like that actually works during periods of real traffic. During commute-heavy hours, there is no way in hell the NS could do this for even 0.1% wheelchair travelers on a train line. You also just don't see wheelchair users on Dutch trains. Never. I mean, it's not like I was paying attention to it and yes, there is sometimes section with a wheelchair accessible toilet, but there's never any wheelchairs there. I mean I take perhaps 2 or 3 Dutch trains per year, but still.

So to put it bluntly: I see your articles ... they paint a completely unrealistic picture, and frankly I refuse to believe that things practically work this way.

A lot of details are unspecified. They essentially say "call 3 hours in advance and we'll provide". I called "sorry we don't work at this time, call back during working hours ... blah blah blah", but of course there are (a lot of) trains riding around at the moment. So ... not during weekends ? I hope it's not that bad. Somehow this isn't mentioned on that page. It also seems to be limited to large stations and is not generally available on either all trains or all stations.

I also refuse to believe that this can work for 10-15 wheelchair users on one train. Picturing such a situation raises all sorts of practical issues (for one, I seriously doubt that you can fit more than 5-6 wheelchairs in the biggest NS wheelchair section in a train that I've ever seen) that I'm thinking they just don't deal with.

Just no.

Additionally I'm ignoring the fact that for wheelchair users and other accessibility-challenged users the other problems of the train (such as a potentially large walking distance between the station and your house and/or your actual destination) that cars don't have as much are much worse than for normal people.

I will agree that the trains in Holland are much more usable than the trains in the Bay Area. That's certainly true. But practical for wheelchair users ? No way. Anywhere even remotely as good as having a car ? No way. (but yes, if you're rich (cars are cheaper), and live in inner city of the Hague, they're certainly more practical)

Eurostars are awfully simple to board on a wheelchair. If a platform hasn't been already provided (as it should be if you booked online) you merely need to ask for assistance at the check in desk, they'll call for a ramp. If push comes to shove, somebody will lift you up. Total time of the operation = 50 seconds.

What does Amazon have to do with this? Nobody is saying that service trucks transporting goods should go away. Obviously they cannot. And nobody is trying to completely abolish private personal transportation either. But those who need to use a personal car also benefit from more people using public transport, via reduced congestion!

Of course, there's coordination problem here: ceteris paribus car users benefit from other people shifting to public transport, as long as they themselves don't have to switch. This is why it is important to make public transport a genuinely attractive option, and to put a price on the negative externalities caused by private cars, for example by means of congestion charges.

Public transit is dramatically better for disabled and elderly people (and anyone else who can’t easily drive, such as children, tourists, the poor, sick/injured people, ..) than cars.

High-density neighborhoods make grocery shopping much easier for everyone. Here in San Francisco, I have one grocery store 1 block away, another grocery store 2 blocks away, and 3 more grocery stores within 5 blocks. I can do all of my grocery shopping on foot, and I can pick up what I need in a small batch on my way home on any arbitrary trip. If I were disabled or elderly I would probably additionally need a cart of some sort, instead of carrying groceries myself.

Well, there are a couple of reasons they can make it work:

-Tax cars really highly.

-Have car quotas

-Suppress dissent and in practice a one party system

-Build out public transit

-Pop Density.

-No land for sprawl available.

Japan also has excellent public transportation, and is much less restrictive than Singapore. In major metro areas, its rail systems even make a profit.

It has sprawl but it's far less auto-oriented than the US.

Some major factors are: -expressways are almost all tolled -carbuyers are required to demonstrate that they own/rent a parking space, rather than policy than mandates every new housing unit and business have enough parking that demand is more than sated even at zero cost -zoning that allows sufficiently-dense land use such that most residences are within a short walk of a rail station— this station usually has groceries and other necessities nearby, as well as schools within walking distance

You don’t need to run a one-party police state in order to have a functioning public transit system or limit urban car use, and it’s entirely possible to have a one-party police state while also having car-dependent suburban sprawl.

Granted. I'm just pointing out those were the reasons it was "easy" to pull off in SG.

I'm humbled to learn that the experience that have led to me never bothering to get a drivers license because public transportation generally works better than private the high population density places I've lived the vast majority of my adult life has been a figment of my imagination.

> high population density places I've lived the vast majority of my adult life has been a figment of my imagination

Just a wild guess, the "vast majority of your adult life" are the experience you imagine the whole world has, yet they were spent unattached, without children or supporting so much as a cat, never mind children in a rich area of a huge city (and yes, San Francisco counts as huge) ...

Clearly we should design the entire planet around the frustrations extremely rich Californians experience ($100k per year is almost 2 TIMES the median income, and makes you part, as an unattached person, of the top 7% income earners in the US. Let's just stop pretending and point out the obvious: to fix income inequality in the US, these incomes are what needs to be taxed MUCH more, without, of course, providing any more government services for that extra tax for you. You do not need it. Plenty of other people, 93% when not even counting those outside the US, do need it)

Sorry for the derision, but you were doing it to me.

> Just a wild guess, the "vast majority of your adult life" are the experience you imagine the whole world has, yet they were spent unattached, without children or supporting so much as a cat, never mind children in a rich area of a huge city (and yes, San Francisco counts as huge) ...

The majority of it was spent attached, with a child, and several years of it taking buggies on public transport.

And no, San Francisco is not huge - San Francisco isn't much bigger than my suburb.

You also seem to think I'm in the US, for no good reason.

So that's wrong on every count.

I live in San Francisco am unable to drive (before Uber and Lyft) and raised a child. While it was sometimes challenging, I would have been unable to live my life without mass transit.

San Francisco Muni has a daily ridership of 658k. Do you really think it would be better if all of those rides were done via car?

This is totally the exact thing the article is talking about. I've spoken to American friends who tell me that public transport can just never work when talking about their experience with BART and MUNI. But you don't have to go very far away to find a place where it really does work.

BART and Muni are good public transit by American standards— which is to say, not particularly good public transit.

This comment only makes sense in an American context. Other developed and even developing countries do it much better, lacking the limitations you’ve described.

>We all know what would happen to bus stops, stations, and generally to public places if people on buses actually had anywhere near the density "made possible" by public transport. It just won't work.

And yet it works perfectly well all around the world.

Maybe American culture is a bit different than everywhere else. If so, enabling this different to continue might be a good idea. Diversity and all that.

Or maybe American laws make it essentially illegal to use newly-developed or redeveloped land in a way compatible with high-quality transit service.

It seems to work in New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle. Of course it could be better in some of those places, but those cities could not exist in their current form without mass transit.

Or maybe not, obesity, environment costs, and all that...

Besides, is Manhattan not American? The seem to do well (though, of course, they could spend more and improve their neglected since the 70s or so subway).

Still the only city to have many lines open 24/7 and besides a few other American cities, I don't think any other city has a 24 hour line.

Your counter argument to public transit is flying cars? Your entire statement is a strawman argument.

No one is saying get rid of cars, simply improve traffic by adding mass transit