Fast buses are difficult if they are stuck in car traffic. Remove the cars and the bus can move much faster. If the bus moves faster and can more accurately predict a schedule, more people may use it, which allows more frequent runs, and so on.

It took SF over 20 years to get started on one fast bus line on Geary. It's still not done.

https://thefrisc.com/the-ballad-of-geary-brt-b70ac45d0a4e

Functioning major cities build subways, a much bigger undertaking.

I think buses is all we can handle in SF considering the Chinatown subway station debacle.

Our roads are fairly wide for a city, I think busses are ok. They're way cheaper too.

I guess we'll see by 2040 :)

Buses also need to be safe in SF. If its just me riding, I sometimes will grab one rather than driving. If I am going somewhere with my son, I typically just use the car.

We can restrict cars and build public transit. Cars are the #1 killer of Americans under the age of 25. It only falls to #2 at the next age range because of overdose deaths.

Cars are deadly and inefficient. Electric cars are still cars.

Except that most vehicular deaths don't occur in cities [1]. Banning cars in metro areas would do basically nothing to change the things you mention. Banning cars where deaths actually happen is a complete non-starter.

[1] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/10/the-geography...

New York City sees ~200 traffic deaths every year, the good majority of them pedestrians, and it's traumatic every time it happens. Sure, as a percentage of our population, we have fewer people dying from car crashes than Montana, but so what? Does that mean the 200 deaths per year is acceptable, especially when we can do a lot more to bring down the number of deaths than Montana can because we're dense enough for people to use alternatives?

It would make a real difference in NYC, so why wouldn't we do it. I'm always a little bit on edge when crossing intersections on foot, and especially when biking, because so many drivers are so erratic and dangerous. We don't need to put up with it.

What does "traffic deaths" mean and what are the detailed stats on that? I'd love to see a source because I strongly suspect a large portion of those are not private passenger vehicle collisions.

Also, every transportation method includes accidents. From [1] describing NYC subway safety, "There were nearly 900 incidents last year [2017] in which someone was on the tracks or was hit by a train after getting too close while on the platform." Should we also ban subways because people die as a result of them?

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/nyregion/nyc-subway-track...

The majority of those are people on foot or on bike who get run over by cars and trucks. The rest are people in cars and trucks who die either in single vehicle crashes or in crashes with other vehicles. This doesn't include subway deaths; that's a separate stat. I'm not playing semantic games here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/01/nyregion/nyc-biking-death...

As for the subway, that's a separate topic. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your whataboutism. Yes, of course it can and should be made safer. One obvious way to do so would be to add platform gates as many other subway systems worldwide have. But the subway is already a lot safer than on-street vehicle traffic, and no, of course we shouldn't ban it.

Your NYT article does not provide any actual detailed statistics on type of vehicle involved, let alone whether the drivers were always at fault.

And I'm pointing out the issues with transportation safety in general because people such as yourself demonize cars specifically when it's not at all clear that cars are the real problem, let alone the biggest one. Look at Tokyo for example. Cars are all over the city, but pedestrian fatalities are extremely low because affordances are given to pedestrian traffic (ex. elevated crosswalks). If you want to sell people on banning personal vehicles in cities, the burden of proof is on you that 1) cars are the best problem to focus on, 2) the only way to solve the problem is to ban cars, and 3) the available alternatives are actually better than cars

> let alone whether the drivers were always at fault

Why is this relevant? If the city has a 60mph highway running through a dense neighborhood, and a toddler walks into the street, and is killed by a driver (not the driver's fault), that hardly absolves the city of addressing this problem.

I suspect this kind of thinking is what adds to a lot of the friction. Nobody is demonizing drivers. What many of us are upset with is our cities' planning, giving far too much leeway to vehicles and too little to human beings living there.

> Look at Tokyo for example. Cars are all over the city, but pedestrian fatalities are extremely low because affordances are given to pedestrian traffic (ex. elevated crosswalks). If you want to sell people on banning personal vehicles in cities, the burden of proof is on you that 1) cars are the best problem to focus on, 2) the only way to solve the problem is to ban cars, and 3) the available alternatives are actually better than cars

Tokyo has a lower car ownership rate than every city in the U.S. So... although cars may be "all over the city", they're still relatively uncommon.

And what problems do you think we're focused on here? It's not just about safety from car accidents. It's also:

- Is cheaper to not build / maintain roads/streets/bridges/parking lots that would otherwise be unnecessary.

- More pleasant for city residents (fewer honking horns, less sitting in traffic, more space for parks and greenery, more walking -> healthier residents, etc.)

- More environmentally friendly from both a localized air pollution standpoint and a global climate one.

Besides the other commenter pointing out that Tokyo has low car ownership rates, so if that's your ideal model then you too are essentially on the same side as getting rid of most of the cars, there's a telling fact in your suggestion to remove people from the urban streetscape entirely by removing them to elevated walkways. Cities are for people. Why are cars so important that they should take over everything? Why ban people from the streets instead of banning the cars? I don't want to have to take stairways and bridges everywhere, and then have huge numbers of vehicles whizzing by constantly at ground level emitting lots of pollution (yes, even EVs emit brake and tire dust). That sounds like a dystopian nightmare city, not a pleasant city.

And I don't know what to tell you, but I've been to Tokyo, and it's nothing like what you're describing. You sure you went to the right place? The most busy pedestrian crossing in the world, the Shibuya scramble, is in Tokyo, and it's an at-grade intersection. You know why it's safe? Because pedestrians are prioritized over vehicles, and the longest part of the light cycle stops all the car traffic entirely and lets people walk everywhere. And also, the Japanese are simply more communally-minded than Americans. Simply put, their drivers are better-behaved. They generally won't park in marked bike lanes (same as in Amsterdam) because of the social stigma of doing so. Meanwhile, in the US, drivers don't give a shit, and so we need a solution that isn't social stigma -- building more physical protection and removing cars entirely from many spaces, since people can't and won't operate them safely.

And the discussion of "fault" is entirely missing the point. It doesn't matter who's at fault in any given fatal crash. What matters is that we have 40k deaths per year in the United States caused by vehicles, more than almost any other cause, and we need to fix it. The fault if anything is a systems problem; we have way too many cars, not enough alternatives to them, and the built city environment prioritizes cars too much and doesn't do enough to separate vulnerable people who aren't in cars from them entirely.

Does "vehicular deaths" include deaths caused by air pollution? I think I've read that cars cause more deaths through air pollution than through collisions.

I happen to know that 100% of vehicular deaths in San Francisco happen in the city, so your numbers are pretty suspect.

Great, how many vehicular deaths is that exactly, and how many are cars instead of other vehicles not banned? For comparison, let's also make sure to check the number of CalTrain and BART deaths each year (at least 20 last year)[1].

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/28/as-deaths-rise-on-bay...

You can't mix and match stats like that.

I think it's the "We" that Senior BurningFrog is talking about. The central subway debacle ought to give one pause about the clowns in San Francisco government building anything, ever. 2 billion dollars for 2 miles of subway and counting over the last decade or two; I can't remember how long this has been in the works. Meanwhile Russian barbarians able to add subway stops at will, even during collapse of the Soviet Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_timeline_of_the_Mosc...

Build better alternative works only when combined with a prohibition on cars. Otherwise as soon as the traffic situation improves (as in more people taking bus), car becomes even more faster and convenient. There has to some artificial constraint on the other side - whether it is outright ban or fee/tax or permits is to be seen

There's two part pressure needed for every change: good alternatives and disincentives for the old option.

Empirically, I don't see that at all.

Usually a better alternative will make the old thing obsolete without any disincentives.

This only works if better alternatives don’t impact the existing means.

For instance if you want a good cable car system or dedicated bus lanes, bike paths, it will go through reducing or removing private car lanes.

In general it’s both effects in one go: transform/reduce the existing infra into the new one, automatically making the new one better when it lands (and inconveniencing everyone until it lands)

IMHO, facts don't sell anything. Defining an option as better isn't sufficient. Disincentives for the status quo are not necessarily taxes or legislation. A powerful disincentive is "missing out" on a "movement" or "being left behind". Adding busses doesn't feel like a "movement", but car-less cities has a nice Green Dream ring to it that might garner support from the right demographics by allowing a moral high ground. There will be increasing disincentive pressure against neighborhoods that allow cars, by a migration of commercial business to car-less areas, perhaps, or a loss of property values in those car-packed areas. But for those disincentives to be effective, they should be given time in the spotlight.

Murder requires intent. Involuntary manslaughter is more accurate, if not as emotionally charged.

They know. They deliberately drive As close as they can to cyclists because they feel they own the lane, and if we die it’s our own fault.

Honestly you should probably talk to someone about these thoughts.