People "prefer cars" because people prefer detached houses and low-density living. Not all of them, but plenty enough. For them, an EV is the only electric option.
In cities, of course, public transit should predominate, and should be developed and improved, while car presence should become lower and lower.
it's fine if people use ICE vehicles now and then to visit family, go to a specialty store, etc. it's the daily and weekly trips that need to be fixed.
and the breakeven point does not need to be quite so dense as London. for example, the DC area has a lot of sprawly (at least by east coast standards) suburbs. the DC metro has some room for improvement, but it is still much better than a car for getting into and out of the city during peak hours. though I'll admit I sometimes splurge for an Uber. cars are much more competitive when you don't need to park them.
Obviously it wouldn't scale that well for everybody but I wouldn't be surprised to see, if self driving cars master Manhattan, some more well-off people who aren't currently at "private driver" level of rich to move to self-driving cabs or such to avoid crowding and go point-to-point.
The big advantage of the trains was in leaving Manhattan and going to Long Island, though, compared to the car-bottleneck-hell of the bridges and tunnels.
You're basically rejecting the premise as your counterargument. Yes, in the currently built world where public transit is generally worse, people would rather take a car. What about the scenario where public transit is actually decent? You don't really address this, you just state a bunch of gripes with transit-as-is not transit-as-conjectured.
>And you also have to take into account the hassle of transit not actually getting you where you want to be. It's one thing to have a transit system that can get you between cities or to a large general area; it's another to have a transit system that can get you from an arbitrary door to an arbitrary door, which a car can do.
Pretty much every major Metro in the world does exactly that. NY, London, Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, HK. When trains run at 5 min frequencies or better, and the network is at least federated between hubs, you get effectively arbitrary point to point transport which is always there when you need it, you don't need to find or pay for parking, it will never be broken into or have unexpected maintenance costs, and you can focus on anything you want because you don't have to pay attention to the road. Factoring in the cost of a new car over how many years you will own it, as well as insurance and other expenses, you're paying more per day than you would on the train before you even left the driveway! The rationale of car ownership stops making sense in cities like these, and consequently, people aren't preferring cars.
The commonality of commuting by car in North America doesn't arise out of natural preferences, its a built preference. Built by a system that reinforces itself.
I've been to Paris and London and used their Metros and had no car. They're nice, but there's still a lot of walking between where you are and the metro station. If you're on the system late at night, there's a lot of waiting. If you're on the system during rush hour, there's a lot of people in a tiny space. If you can use it on the shoulders of peak, it's wonderful. Then again, roads are pretty good on the shoulders of peak too (parking in a busy area is almost never great, but there's an easy solution: avoid dense cities, which I'd prefer anyway, dense cities have a lot of people, and I don't like people in groups)
You may not have to pay money for unexpected maintenance, but you may be stuck somewhere when a train breaks down or has a collision; hopefully at a station and not on the particular train. Yeah, this happens with personal vehicles, but when my car won't start, it doesn't have a big impact on taxi capacity; when the train is stuck, everybody wants a taxi and it's hard to get one.
The big problem is there's no sense of agency. I can maintain my car, but I can't maintain the metro. I can fuel my car, but I can't prevent metro workers from striking. I can pretend I'll avoid collisions when driving, but I can't drive the train (and the train can't stop in time if anything unexpected is on the tracks).
Americans like a sense of agency, even if it means a worse result. Give me liberty or give me death and all that.
The weirdest thing about moving to car-centric Silicon Valley are the after work drinks. These are often in the office (since they are located at motorway junctions away from anything else) and then you stand there carefully nursing your one drink since you all have to drive home.
In London you'd just go to a pub for a few beers after work with your colleagues, or meet up with other friends after work because you all worked in the city centre anyway so it was easy.
It seemed impossible to get to my hotel from the Eurostar train in a reasonable time with the tube when I came in on an after work train. Ended up with an unlicensed cab with a driver who spoke with a very deep cockney accent and dropped us off on the wrong side of the street where there was a fence to prevent pedestrian crossings. It was an adventure. I never ended up on the tube, because it was simpler to just walk to the office.
It does require local knowledge to expect this, I'll grant.
A) This problem does exist in cars. Highways crawl to a standstill when there's an accident.
B) there's no such thing as "train collisions". Its not like cars. They don't get into "accidents". It would be unacceptable for public safety if they did. There are other error modes which cause delays, but its not the same thing as tacitly accepting the deadly consequences of the flow of vehicles being loosely regulated and fully decentralized.
C) I think you're severely undervaluing just how much of a "you problem" it is when your car breaks down vs just how fleeting a problem it is when a train is delayed. The inherent statistical risk of the universe is averaged over everyone. You won't ever be randomly on the hook for 3 digit sums of money at random intervals.
The agency argument really underplays the great freedom of not owning a car. Not owning a car means not being tied to where you are. I can get on a plane and move anywhere on a whim. There's nothing to sell off. I can chase any opportunity I want. I'd rather have two wings than 4 wheels. Hows that for personal agency!
From experience with Caltrain, they do. Lack of grade crossings on an underground or elevated train won't prevent 'tresspasser incidents', although no grade crossings and good train control will prevent a lot of things. Sure, it's a me problem when my car breaks down, but it's also a me problem when the train breaks down. Either way, I can't get where I'm going in a reasonable amount of time without an alternative, and when everbody else is looking isn't a great time to be looking myself.
> Not owning a car means not being tied to where you are. I can get on a plane and move anywhere on a whim. There's nothing to sell off.
Cars are pretty easy to sell. Or you can park it at the airport and never pick it up, if you've got nothing else to sell before moving. Of course, getting to the airport may not be easy on transit either (sometimes it is great, sometimes it's an easy transfer or two, sometimes the schedules are aligned in just the wrong way).
I also can't understand why such a tiny country with limited real estate and an urban heat problem allocates so much space (relatively speaking) to roads and carparks.
The reason why people own cars is for flexibility and to have some more control over their lives. Which is also a status symbol. It’s also really, really helpful with kids.
Is it still doable with public transit? Yes. And Singapore is easily one of the more pleasant and doable on that front. But it’s also a lot of dealing with crowds, taking time walking (while carrying things) or just not going, having to fit within society, and often having unpleasantness shoved in your face (well, as much as Singapore has anyway, which isn’t a lot) from society as part of the normal routine.
Unlike Paris, SF, NYC, at least you won’t have too many buskers and scam artists messing with you, which is nice.
If you get in a car, due to all the costs and taxes, the experience is generally a more quiet and pleasant one, and you can go anywhere on the island with (less) worry about what loud/raucous/unpleasant mess you might be stuck being near. And if you do get stuck somewhere, as long as you have AC, you can roll up the windows and mostly ignore any shitshow going on. Which is nice.
Compared to NYC, Paris, SF, Seattle on my list of ‘ugh’ places with public transit), it’s not on the bad list at all.
When I lived there, it was about as good as Switzerland or Tokyo with how well it was run (you’re welcome PAP), but obviously a different cultural feel.
Unlike Switzerland, you do have the more Chinese influenced ‘everyone’s business is my business’, especially from the Ajimas.
And if you’re a Gwailo, you’ll stick out like a sore thumb everywhere - and everyone DOES notice - which has pros and cons.
Also, no worries about folks bringing Durian onboard in Zurich for instance.
I didn’t even try Indian public transit, but that’s my loss I guess. It was sketchy enough just using cabs.
Driving in India is an invitation to get scammed and/or ruined on its own, so
I can’t imagine wading through the crowds. That said, the scams tend to be less in your face than in the western societies, and the scammers more subtle and far less violent. Which is nice, I guess?
Germany, Spain, and UK have good public transit, and middle of the pack for pleasantness.
The Danes run decent public transit in the big cities, but the lack of density meant you could easily be stuck somewhere (and have a very long, very cold walk) if you didn’t know the local holiday schedule. And they didn’t do much signage to tell you.
If done well, Public Transit can be very effective and definitely reduces cost and load with having a vehicle.
But it’s not a place for quiet contemplation (except perhaps in Switzerland, but even then it depends on the day), and it means you’re always dependent on the society you’re in and have to know how it works (and when) to get anywhere.
Which can be limiting in a way Americans outside the cities are used to not being limited.
Also, there is a reason New Yorkers are known for being in your face assholes. You would too - or be crushed - if you had to deal with the people in their daily life that they do.
> What about the scenario where public transit is actually decent?
I would love to have that world. My comment was making it clear that it's reasonable to not choose public transit while we don't have that world, and that it's reasonable to have high expectations on public transit rather than being willing to make do.
Yes, in a world in which we have public transit that is not any slower to use than cars are today, requires no additional walking, requires no additional hassle, and is clean and comfortable, many people will stop preferring cars.
While many people don't enjoy driving, many people do prefer cars as a mode of transit. Don't assume that people "don't like cars", whether or not they like driving as an activity. People overwhelmingly prefer cars.
> if the fastest option is public transit more often than not
That's a very high bar to reach. And you also have to take into account the hassle of transit not actually getting you where you want to be. It's one thing to have a transit system that can get you between cities or to a large general area; it's another to have a transit system that can get you from an arbitrary door to an arbitrary door, which a car can do.