Haha, there's something so true and so boring about the fact that we'd all be much happier with a good public transport system than flying cars.
(1) Does not pick you up from your home and does not drop you off at where you need to go.
(2) Does not start at your schedule. Missed by a hair? Wait up to 2h.
(3) Impossible to transport more than you can carry.
(4) Does not scale. When there are too many people, some will have to wait for the next train or bus. When there are too few people everything still moves around nearly empty.
(5) Being exposed to the public, which could mean drug addicts and insane people that will stab you in the neck for no reason. But mostly just smelly lowlifes that might take a piss in front of you.
No matter how great your public transport is, it cannot solve these inherent issues while being cheaper than a car.
4. Most cars move around nearly empty. When there are too many people (often 1 per car), you get stuck in jams. So cars do not scale either. In this regard public transportation arguably scale better.
1. Bicycles, electric scooters or even walking answer 90% of that concern unless your city is designed against its users.
3. When you need to carry lotta stuff then yes, use a car (either yours or rental). Does it justify bringing your whole car when you do not need to carry anything?
5. True, but I am concerned about what that means about your relationship with society. Or the society you live in.
2. You would NOT wait up to 2 hours in any decent public transportation system.
So yes, cars are still the best solution in some cases. No one argues against that. It is just a poor default.
Getting stuck in jams is down to badly designed roads. For example the use of traffic lights, whose only job it is to stop the flow of traffic.
---
If you need to take a bike or walk, then why not just go to your destination that way? I'll also have you know that not every passenger can have a bike when riding a bus or train. Capacity doesn't allow for this.
---
What use is a rental car for carrying lots of stuff? First you need to go to where the rental car is and then you have to bring it back. Unless the rental car can drive by itself to where you are and drive by itself back it seem really cumbersome.
The issue with carrying stuff is that this will come up eventually and once you already own a car since you have to, why not use it when you don't necessarily have to, just because it is convenient?
---
Can't do much about society. We unfortunately do not lock up insane people anymore and there are even talks of putting mentally disabled people into normal public schools. We live in crazy times.
---
You WILL definitely wait up to 2h, maybe even longer. In fact, you will just be happy that eventually something does show up to take you home. Of course, you can then declare that whatever system you have is not a "decent" transportation system, but it will be reality, unless you live in a state capital and only travel within the city. Once you need to travel to a different state all bets are off.
---
My argument isn't that that cars are better and more convenient than public transport, my argument is that public transport has inherent issues that are impossible to solve and can therefore never replace the role cars have in society as the default.
I hope for a future with cars on demand, where they drive to your home by themselves, you use them, and then they drive off by themselves. But even that won't work very well as it means other people using these cars and thus their cleanliness being in jeopardy. Guess the only way to solve that is by using something I don't want: a surveillance state.
Your experience is obviously about North American car dependent cities, which have all the issues you mention, but it definitely is not that way everywhere. Europe, Asia, and some cities or parts of cities in North America have great public transit that is more convenient and faster than driving.
Having a solution where cars drive people everywhere is definitely not a universally better system. Sprawl and car-centric design makes other (and in many people’s opinion) more pleasant forms of transportation difficult.
For example there are many dense cities and towns where you can find (almost) every amenity within a 3 minute walk: grocery store, barber, bar, cafe, school, etc. Obviously there are some trade-offs, and some people may prefer to live in less dense areas, but that is easily achievable within 10-15 min walking distance to those amenities while still being very car accessible
I live in one. What you are talking about is fantasy. I'm German and live in a large city.
The reality of it is that within the city I just walk everywhere, because taking the tram isn't worth it for small errands. Neither in time nor in money.
When I need to travel to a different state, using public transit is awful. It doesn't only need to be decent in one city. It needs to be decent across the whole country. Because if it is not, I still need a car. And when I have a car, I might as well use it, since it's more convenient.
They downscale pretty well, although the roads and parking space are still there. In practice downscaling does not happen much, though.
> If you need to take a bike or walk, then why not just go to your destination that way?
Because it would take me a whole day walking and only an hour walking + train ? Also, not every passenger needs a bicycle.
As for carrying stuff, I do have a small car. I still mostly move by bycicle and public transportation because it is often faster, easier, cheaper and I dont have to bring a metric ton a metal to carry my 80kg of body meat.
The car is for visiting remote places with the kids, for example. Public transportation just doesn't work there, agreed.
For the record I never had any real issue with anyone in trains or buses.
I did have to wait for 2h occasionally when there some accident on the line but I also got stuck in jams for hours because of some accident downstream. So it's a tie for me. This said, I never had to wait for 2h because I missed a bus in a well deserved area.
I believe it depends heavily on the place we live in. FWIW I'm in a second tier French city, about 200k inhabitants.
Where are you?
I don't even care if you're going to say my rebuttal is sh*t. I will not be putting any effort into refuting your blind allegiance to the car over public transport.
Technically, no.
But if you need that car once or twice a week to carry things then you already have the car. If you have it, it would be difficult to justify a 2h30m commute to work on public transit (my scenario) when I can just drive in 40 minutes with that car I already have.
What I really wish for is a lot more support for safe bike trails. I can commute to work in ~2 hours in a bike (still faster than public transport). I think with an e-bike I could cut that to barely more than an hour, and get some exercise and fresh air every day. But I do it only rarely because the route involves many stretches of dangerous avenues with barely a bike lane.
Many people do it. I did it myself for a few years. It sucks.
I agree with your sentiment about bike trails!
To be clear, it is only 2h30m by public transit.
Driving there is only 40 minutes which is, not ideal, but not that bad.
Doesn't sound like it? What kind of functional transport has a once a 2 hour schedule? I see this in rural areas but not in cities with good public transport.
It's common for trains going to different cities to only come by every two hours. If you are somewhere more rural it might only come once per day, if at all.
Maybe I'm lucky in my commute, I live in a small town in the UK, and head into London once a week- if I do miss my train it's about 20 minutes until the next at peak times.
I honestly can't think of anything worse than trying to do that journey driving though, it'd be twice as long, and very expensive to park etc.
> If you are somewhere more rural it might only come once per day, if at all.
No one is arguing a complete replacement of cars, especially in rural areas. This is a strawman.
Most of your arguments throughout this thread are, really.
You'd think so, but the trains are regularly arriving late. It's not like a single train will always bring you to your destination. You'll have to switch trains multiple times and when one of your trains is late, you won't make it in time for the next and will have to wait.
> No one is arguing a complete replacement of cars
You might not be, but I've had this discussion countless times with people advocating for banning cars. I'm not against public transport, I'm just saying it has unresolvable issues that prevent it from being as useful as a car.
I guess maybe? My original comment was about the benefits of relatively good public transport vs flying cars (which seem space age but don't add a lot of value to our lives).
I think you're arguing a world with only cars might be more workable than a world with only public transport? I'm not sure that's a choice that's required by anyone though?
Keyword here being 'convenient'.
We have been seduced by convenience. Moreso than simple greed, I would say. Unfortunately, convenience is killing us. It is also robbing us of satisfaction.
The problem is that the same "we" won't let you build it.
I can see how a young, fit and childless 20 something would be much happier with a good public transport system, but once you stop fitting that narrow model, your affection for urban dreams dies slowly.
And don't get me started on the price for construction and maintenance.
I know exactly zero people that use public transport because of safety, specifically homeless/druggies. And yes, we all tried. I was an idiot and went with a kid, for my first and last time, after listening to a local, with mental blinders on.
Cities poll these things. Look up your local public transport polls, to see what others think. If you're in SF, for example, you wont be remotely surprised by the results [1].
[1] https://www.independentnews.com/news/regional_and_ca/bart-su...
And, you haven't said a word about even the possibility that good public healthcare, including mental healthcare funding, and a good social safety net vastly reduces those terribly inconvenient people in the streets with nowhere to go.
But in that case you'd have to blame the people in charge instead of the people.
More to the point, there’s a parallel system that came out of the same lawsuit that found the subway system illegally inaccessible to people with mobility needs. Those people can use MTA-funded “Access-a-ride” service, which offers private, scheduled door-to-door transportation for the price of a subway ride. It’s a really expensive way to do it, but a remarkable lifeline for the people I know who, for example, need occasional transportation to and from medical appointments.
Sure, you can use buses, but the buses are way less frequent than the trains, and you're waiting for them out in the cold, heat, or rain, often with no cover and no bench. If there's service on a subway line, it's possible there's no accessible route to where you're going, which could require a few bus transfers as an alternative.
Access-a-ride is a great concept, but one that shouldn't need to exist, and doesn't cover the full spectrum of folks who rely on accessible transport.
I'm a huge proponent of public transportation, and haven't owned a car in 15 years, but let's not give NYC a pass on this. Every station should have at least one elevator, and should be fully accessible.