Elon Musk Calls Transit Expert “An Idiot” and Says Public Transport “Sucks”

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
6,000
I think if you could eliminate the homeless and the criminals from trains/mass transit it might be more popular. But hiring cops costs money so forget all that nonsense.

You'd also have to make being a hobo a crime.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,128
Public transits in America do suck and is not safe. However, Elon's comment really drives home the phenomenon ever since Trump was elected president and that is the disappearance of filtering. His view is only possible for those with high income. The rest of the population has to make do with what is affordable to them. As population continue to grow with lack of jobs to accommodate the increase, we are going to hear more and more of this type of comments: the rich and the poor showing disdain for each other publically.
And as I mentioned above, driving a car to and from work is not a "rich people" thing. When mass transit takes 2-3 times as long to get to your destination to commute 5 days a week to work or anywhere else, and costs almost 2/3 the price of a new car's monthly payments(yeah low-end, but that's beside the point) just for commuting, how the hell are cars for people with "high income"? Go buy a car for $10k on craigslist, won't even be a beater at that point, and you'll be saving money in a year.
 

atmartens

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
69
If mass transit is too crowded, then that's a sign of success, not failure. It means the transit network needs to be expanded. If commute times are too long, then either the population densities aren't enough to support mass transit, or not enough resources have been invested. Many problems with mass transit could be fixed with more funding.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,827
smelly people, 50-70% more time wasted.
If you tally up, you'll have wasted years of your life on public transit.
time is money. time is precious
and yes, it is a pipe dream. Elon is laying pipe everywhere through his Boring company

Said someone who must live in a place with bad mass transit and/or a sparse population. Go the Manhattan and tell me how driving is faster. Go from downtown Chicago to the airport in Rush hour and tell me how driving is faster (trust meI've been in both sides of that and the train is way WAY faster. I suspect the same is true in Boston.
 

SpeedyVV

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
4,211
And yet Europeans still overwhelmingly use passenger vehicles to get around:

Modal_split_of_inland_passenger_transport%2C_2014_%28%25_of_total_inland_passenger-km%29_YB17.png


http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Passenger_transport_statistics

Awesome!

Portugal wins the Eurovision song contest, Euro Cup, and now highest percentage of non-looser idiots that have to mingle in shit public transportation that does not even meet the standards for humane transportation of cattle!!!!!

Right now, I am living in London, where you can get anywhere quickly using public transportation. But dont even think of bringing a cow with you. You would be arrested for cruelty against animals as per EU directives.

Now, cars in London is a complete nightmare most of the time.

So I bought myself a 125cc motorbike, and it is awesome. I hope to be around next year, but if you dont see me around the forums, just assume i've been turned into a pancake by one of them double decker buses!
 
Last edited:

tajoh111

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2012
Messages
213
Public transport, particularly heavy rail(subway) is irreplaceable in cities with high population densities.

The passenger capacity of heavyrail including the actual time transported is almost unbeatable because of a dedicated line and the sheer amount of people it can transport within a relatively small space.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-a...on-systems-fall-2006/lecture-notes/lect11.pdf

What tesla suggested isn't remotely economically feasible. E.g Individual pods carry just individuals rather than groups of people.

This is because the two literally conflict with one another. Having dedicated traffic networks for what it is an infinite amount of traffic routes carry single passengers would cost infinite dollars.

The cost to build a mile of subway is already a billion plus in some cities like new york. This cost burden is only acceptable because it millions of people are using the subway and the cost is decreased and the capacity is increased because of the limited amount of traffic routes and everyone sharing the same routes. That is a whole pile of people come in at once at limited destinations.

Now increase the amount of potential routes, limit the amount of passengers traveling per vehicle and you have an infrastructure costs nightmare.

Hecks it's more practical to have flying cars. Having something fly away when you are dropped off and have it come back when you want to be picked up. This is because it wouldn't have the extreme infrastructure cost and it isn't as real estate heavy.

In cities like new york, finding parking is a nightmare on top of being super expensive. It's to the extent that unless your a millionaire, using parking daily is unafffordable if you work somewhere like manhattan. Your spending thousands of dollars on parking monthly and tolls. Increase the number of cards on the road which Tesla wants to do unless he gets his impossible pipedream(and can make money off of it) those parking spots become even more expensive due to a increased demand. Make more parking spots you think? Ripping out real estate or office space to make more room for parking spots is crazy expensive. Making automated underground parking stalls would cost billions as well. The engineering cost would be insane because of the number of parking garages required and to do everything safely so we don't have buildings collapsing from the construction occurring below. Not to mention the cost of the machinery to do such a thing.

Tesla is a bright guy but his focus is generally on things that can make him money regardless of the cost requirement on infrastructure. That's is why we always have to look at what he says with a microscope because it also seems fine if your impractical millennial who thinks we can't put a price tag on certain things. Infrastructure funds are limited and there are other important things like healthcare and education that need dollars more than transportation. Continuing to use current public transportation is a threat to Tesla because it lowers the amount of cars on the road and is a viable eco alternative to transport.
 

oldmanbal

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
2,613
As someone who rides the bus occasionally for its convenience and doing my part to save on emissions, it's pretty grungy, poorly maintained, and I'm often left sitting next to a perceivably homeless alcoholic that smells like a putrid corpse. Not everyone shares personal hygiene as a goal and you notice it the most when you are stuck on a full bus next to such an individual.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
The Tesla CEO went decidedly low-brow in an exchange with transportation experts this week following reports of comments in which he called public transport a “pain in the ass” and suggested the subway was a great place to bump into a murderer. Critics pounced on Musk’s description of shared transit as an unpleasant safety risk, arguing that his views were elitist, and that his vision of individualized transit is a pipe dream.

I wonder how all these transportation experts get to work?
I really doubt they are taking mass transit. If they where it wouldn't suck so badly.

Mass transit for the little people, not important people like them.
 

_l_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
1,151
He just wants to take humanity to a whole new level in as many regards as possible.

here in Albuquerque NM USA they just built a rapid transit bus system on Central Avenue; it's the outgoing Mayor's legacy project. Then they had to hire security guards to man the stop stations and ride the buses to keep the homeless and transients and druggies and drunks and riff raff off the buses otherwise the residents won't use the new high speed buses ... just saying
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
Should you be a man, and over the age of 28, find yourself riding a bus, you may count yourself a failure. LOL

Seriously, public trans is terrible.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
794
Musk has bailouts and tax incentives to do what he does with the tube when the concept fails in real world usage.
But every press love singing praise about Musk without looking into the nitty gritty details that would tarnish the messiah-like image that he had groomed
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
And how about the government funding and sustainment of these rail programs?
I would MUCH rather give Musk a tax break!
 

MrDeaf

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
428
Unless the rail transit is underground, all it does is muck things up and make things worse for everyone else. Above ground railways won't even get people to where they need to go, unless they have an extensive network.


Streetcars? These are, by far and away, the worst way to transport people. Not only are they susceptible to regular road traffic, they cause way more problems with traffic than they solve. Totally obsolete form of transport. In fact, buses have gotten to the point where they can replace streetcars just fine. Even more so if existing streetcar dedicated infrastructure is converted over for buses.

At ground Railways? They take up too much space and screw up roads. Unless you build a pax network on an existing railway, they would be way too expensive to build from scratch as well.

Overground Railways? They still require a lot of space and most of these will be forced to follow a wide road, rather than an optimal path that provides the best coverage.

Underground Railways? If the city/state has the money, this is the best way to move people about. You can ignore existing roadways and build an optimal path that gets a lot of people moving to where they need to go. Did I say it was expensive? because it is.
 

snowcrash

Gawd
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
712
Should you be a man, and over the age of 28, find yourself riding a bus, you may count yourself a failure. LOL
Seriously, public trans is terrible.
There are not enough jobs for every person to have high enough of income to avoid public transit in America. That is the nature of capitalism. For you to say this just goes to show the disconnect between various income levels. That and the lack of filters again. This is thoughts you keep to yourself and count your blessings that you' have done well. There is no need to say it out loud.
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,916
In most Europe cities public transport is great. On time, not crowded and takes you everywhere you want way faster than a car. It's US that's light years behind...

In general yes.

But from someone I knew who lived in France, lots of late trains, buses, and strikes (okay this is more of a French thing). And numerous attempts at foul-play that a quick kick to the nuts and quickly fleeing fixed.

Certainly better than the US without a doubt, but personally I'd rather avoid if possible.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2017
Messages
35
An interesting notion I find in this thread is that what commenters dislike the most is the hobo/smelly/non-clean people more than anything else... Maybe do something about their situation to keep them from being smelly/non-clean and making the public transit bad?... But then there's also the fact that it's public so "I'm not paying for it so I can break/steal it etc" is not very good and could use a change but I don't see that happening in the US anytime soon...

However often public transport isn't a great sell for many places but for me 5min walk, 20min train ride, 5min walk it's great fairly clean trains decent seats and so on... If I would take a car it would take same time (unless congestion) and be a lot more work trying to find a parking space and also cost more...
 

SamuraiInBlack

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
5,772
Should you be a man, and over the age of 28, find yourself riding a bus, you may count yourself a failure. LOL

Seriously, public trans is terrible.

There are guys who are making twice as much as me who ride the Metra and/or the bus in Chicago on a daily basis. I'm about to clear 60K for the year. I have to drive everyday to my job. From an earnings standpoint, I'm pretty sure I'm the failure to them.
 

SamuraiInBlack

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
5,772
I don't think that's an issue of being introverted, I'm pretty sure most people in general have an aversion to sitting in a tin can that smells like piss.

Yes, that is true. But being in a tin can full of random people is rarely comfortable for me. The smell of piss just cranks the discomfort levels to 11.
 
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
634
Musk's traffic tunnel ideas are very much a pipe dream. An elevator would need to be extremely heavy-duty to lower and lift multi-ton objects quickly and would break down a lot. Getting cars into the tunnel would take too long and there would be massive bottlenecks at the entrances. A traditional underground ramp to a tunneled freeway is just the same old 20th century idea that's never worked well, and usually not at all. The only difference from Boston's Big Dig is better drilling equipment, which is not enough to make the idea workable.

Musk is very much wedded to the c1950 idea that there is some magical formula or road design where everyone can drive a gigantic metal box around, which is not surprising considering he is the CEO of a company that sells gigantic metal boxes. Most people acknowledge that traffic sucks in their city, but they blame the local government and assume there is a better way to design roads so that it does not take forever to get through a commute and find parking. The truth is that no one has found such a solution because it does not exist. Car-based transit requires more road and parking space than any city can ever build. Cities like Los Angeles have hit the limits of sprawl and are still nowhere near the point where all the traffic can flow without creating jams and bottlenecks. Attempts to remedy the issue by expanding roadways (like the recent 405 expansion) cost billions of dollars and do not reduce congestion, but only incentivize more people to drive and at peak hours.

The upshot is that auto-centric transit models only work in areas of low population density and only with massive subsidies from high-density areas because the infrastructure does not generate enough economic activity to pay for its construction and maintenance. In fact, driving in general requires massive taxpayer subsidies to work, to the tune of about $1.20 per mile. Since the average vehicle is driven about 15,000 miles per year, that's $18k per year per driver! You can trot that out the next time someone says public transit is too expensive.

The problem, of course, is the question "what's the alternative?" No one likes taking the bus, and with spread-out cities the distances are too long, and you would need an impractical number of buses and routes. The answer is bicycle infrastructure and mass transit agencies that assume people will have bikes. It is not feasible to send a bus within walking distance of everyone's house in a city like my hometown of Stockton, CA, but you could easily put a major stop or station within cycling distance (about 4 miles) and have physically separated bike lanes that can move 50 times the traffic density per lane. Even if most people keep driving, everyone who switches to bike will mean one less car causing traffic jams, adding wear and tear to the roads, and increasing the burden on the health care system, which means a nicer and cheaper place to live for everybody. People who cannot afford to drive would still be able to get around, leading to a better economy with fewer people trapped in food deserts with no practical way to get a job, which means fewer people who need government assistance. It also means fewer drunks on the road and drivers not having to share the road with slower bicycle traffic. The only people who don't benefit are auto manufacturers and oil + gas companies, which is why our governments keep pushing car-only transit models that have failed miserably for 7 decades. Personally, I don't think it's worth it for everyone to suffer a dysfunctional transit model just so that a couple of industries can make a higher profit.

For a single person in a warm climate, your idea has merit. Try biking in Ontario (Canada, not Cali.) when it's -20 out and you have two kids to drop off at daycare.
 

FlawleZ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
1,598
I just drive myself to work. I live a solid 25-30 minutes from work and I'm just outside the public transportation range anyway. Public transportation in my opinion should be used only when it makes perfect sense or as an absolute last resort. I enjoy my personal cars and driving too much to give those up.
 

sadsteve

Gawd
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
610
Musk's traffic tunnel ideas are very much a pipe dream. An elevator would need to be extremely heavy-duty to lower and lift multi-ton objects quickly and would break down a lot. Getting cars into the tunnel would take too long and there would be massive bottlenecks at the entrances. A traditional underground ramp to a tunneled freeway is just the same old 20th century idea that's never worked well, and usually not at all. The only difference from Boston's Big Dig is better drilling equipment, which is not enough to make the idea workable.

Musk is very much wedded to the c1950 idea that there is some magical formula or road design where everyone can drive a gigantic metal box around, which is not surprising considering he is the CEO of a company that sells gigantic metal boxes. Most people acknowledge that traffic sucks in their city, but they blame the local government and assume there is a better way to design roads so that it does not take forever to get through a commute and find parking. The truth is that no one has found such a solution because it does not exist. Car-based transit requires more road and parking space than any city can ever build. Cities like Los Angeles have hit the limits of sprawl and are still nowhere near the point where all the traffic can flow without creating jams and bottlenecks. Attempts to remedy the issue by expanding roadways (like the recent 405 expansion) cost billions of dollars and do not reduce congestion, but only incentivize more people to drive and at peak hours.

The upshot is that auto-centric transit models only work in areas of low population density and only with massive subsidies from high-density areas because the infrastructure does not generate enough economic activity to pay for its construction and maintenance. In fact, driving in general requires massive taxpayer subsidies to work, to the tune of about $1.20 per mile. Since the average vehicle is driven about 15,000 miles per year, that's $18k per year per driver! You can trot that out the next time someone says public transit is too expensive.

The problem, of course, is the question "what's the alternative?" No one likes taking the bus, and with spread-out cities the distances are too long, and you would need an impractical number of buses and routes. The answer is bicycle infrastructure and mass transit agencies that assume people will have bikes. It is not feasible to send a bus within walking distance of everyone's house in a city like my hometown of Stockton, CA, but you could easily put a major stop or station within cycling distance (about 4 miles) and have physically separated bike lanes that can move 50 times the traffic density per lane. Even if most people keep driving, everyone who switches to bike will mean one less car causing traffic jams, adding wear and tear to the roads, and increasing the burden on the health care system, which means a nicer and cheaper place to live for everybody. People who cannot afford to drive would still be able to get around, leading to a better economy with fewer people trapped in food deserts with no practical way to get a job, which means fewer people who need government assistance. It also means fewer drunks on the road and drivers not having to share the road with slower bicycle traffic. The only people who don't benefit are auto manufacturers and oil + gas companies, which is why our governments keep pushing car-only transit models that have failed miserably for 7 decades. Personally, I don't think it's worth it for everyone to suffer a dysfunctional transit model just so that a couple of industries can make a higher profit.


Southern California is almost the Mecca of bicycling. Low amount of rain, moderate to hot climate and bike lanes up the kazoo in the more populated areas. I use to live in Westminster CA and bicycled 6000-7000 miles a year. Bicycling is only feasible part of the time in other areas. I might have been able to ride my bicycle to work when I lived in northern Illinois if I wanted to spend 2.5-3.0 hours getting to and from work (45 miles away and no bike lanes). And I would really only have been able to do it for a few months a year due to the weather. Bicycling is not really an option for a large portion of the US population.
 

Nightfire

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 7, 2017
Messages
3,280
Chill, it was just an old Margrett Thatcher quote. I know public trans is a necissary evil for most incomes.
 

PCMusicGuy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,220
The only place I've ever been where I legitimately thought I could live and be OK with public transportation was Singapore. That was nearly 10 years ago. I have no idea if that is still the case.
 

GlowingGhoul

Whines about Whiners
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
445
Have you ever been to Europe? Of course people drive cars, but if you don't have one it's a none issue, you can get literally everywhere using public transport easily and a lot of people use it. Partly due to high gas prices, but often it's just more convenient, especially in bigger cities. Internet statistics are just that, statistics, they don't reflect real life very often.

I have lived in Europe for over a decade, have you?

European countries are geographically small, densely populated areas, coupled with pre-automobile developed town and cities, so of course public transportation plays a larger role than in an enormous relatively sparsely populated country.

But no, you cannot "get everywhere", nor is it generally inexpensive or convenient. Almost everyone strives to own an automobile. That would simply not be the case if your claims were true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLee
like this
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
558
For a single person in a warm climate, your idea has merit. Try biking in Ontario (Canada, not Cali.) when it's -20 out and you have two kids to drop off at daycare.
These are 2 of the common reasons people always trot out that it's supposedly impossible to get around by bike. Winter cycling is very possible, but even if everyone used cars all winter cities and their citizens would save massive amounts of money if more trips were taken by bike in other seasons.

A cargo bike can carry multiple kids and all their stuff. In fact, there are trailer setups that can put a pickup truck to shame! With proper infrastructure and depending on the city, you might even get the kids to school faster. Separated cycle tracks are also much safer than driving, as seen by the low numbers of fatalities in cities that take cycling seriously like Amsterdam and Copenhagen.

Southern California is almost the Mecca of bicycling. Low amount of rain, moderate to hot climate and bike lanes up the kazoo in the more populated areas. I use to live in Westminster CA and bicycled 6000-7000 miles a year. Bicycling is only feasible part of the time in other areas. I might have been able to ride my bicycle to work when I lived in northern Illinois if I wanted to spend 2.5-3.0 hours getting to and from work (45 miles away and no bike lanes). And I would really only have been able to do it for a few months a year due to the weather. Bicycling is not really an option for a large portion of the US population.
No one is suggesting that people can feasibly cycle the whole way for a 45 mile commute, but for relatively dense areas a train with a bike car can be just as quick as driving for trips like that. A car-only transit model might be the most sensible in Northern Illinois, don't know, I haven't been there. But the areas around major cities are badly in need of alternatives to driving and aren't getting them.
 

WBurchnall

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
2,622
The only public transport system that I've used that isn't a total shit show is in Japan.
If you are lucky enough to wake up as a tourist and take the train at 10am after the rush hour is over or you're visiting a small quaint town. Major cities though, have huge issues; it's literately people with sticks pushing you onto a train to try to get the train loaded to the absolute maximum possible and to squeeze out ever last inch of space available; cramming that space full with human bodies. I wouldn't necessarily call that a paradise. I wouldn't call it a total shit show either though as at least the trains run on time. Either way, I'd rather be in a car than have four guys bodies pressed up tightly against me from all sides and unable to escape the smell of body odour from the one of the 5 who didn't shower recently enough. No offense to other men.


Certainly not a car payment(for a new car) but not everyone buys a new car every 5 years either.
I believe your speil about $168 more dollars per month didn't include car insurance either. Depending on where you live and accident history, that can be $100/month or worse. $68 dollars certainly doesn't cover a car payment unless by car you meant 'Power Scooter'. Public transit is cheaper and for the poor people in the world. Cars are more expensive, it's just very convenient too. The thing is, sometimes, public transit provides a "better" experience now as automation has not taken over driving yet. If I were to be on a bus, I could spend me time reading a self improvement book or just binge watching a series on Netflix for an hour. You could complete like 1 and a half episodes on the way there and an equal amount on the way back. Hopefully, nobody is dumb enough to try to read from a book or watch a series while driving.

Once cars are self-driven; that'll be another story...public transit will loose that advantage.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,713
You'd also have to make being a hobo a crime.

Not really, being homeless in itself isn't a crime. Arresting homeless just causes other problems (like filling up jails). But the homeless don't buy tickets, they just ride the trains because it's something to do, somewhat climate controlled, has people on there they can panhandle / beg for $$. If there was actual law enforcement on the trains, preventing people from riding that don't buy tickets, then there could be some reduction (I doubt it's a great solution, but it could only help) of the homeless on trains.

That may come across as sounding elitest, but I'm not trying to. Homelessness is a very real problem and needs real solutions. Policing the trains won't solve that problem, but it might reduce their numbers on the trains. The goal here is to increase ridership, not tackle the homeless problems.

Also, more cops on trains would cut down on the criminals / gangs who prey on the riders.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
13,050
People suck, which makes public transport suck, as they treat it as it's nobody's property, destroying it and smearing shit all over it.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,128
If you are lucky enough to wake up as a tourist and take the train at 10am after the rush hour is over or you're visiting a small quaint town. Major cities though, have huge issues; it's literately people with sticks pushing you onto a train to try to get the train loaded to the absolute maximum possible and to squeeze out ever last inch of space available; cramming that space full with human bodies. I wouldn't necessarily call that a paradise. I wouldn't call it a total shit show either though as at least the trains run on time. Either way, I'd rather be in a car than have four guys bodies pressed up tightly against me from all sides and unable to escape the smell of body odour from the one of the 5 who didn't shower recently enough. No offense to other men.



I believe your speil about $168 more dollars per month didn't include car insurance either. Depending on where you live and accident history, that can be $100/month or worse. $68 dollars certainly doesn't cover a car payment unless by car you meant 'Power Scooter'. Public transit is cheaper and for the poor people in the world. Cars are more expensive, it's just very convenient too. The thing is, sometimes, public transit provides a "better" experience now as automation has not taken over driving yet. If I were to be on a bus, I could spend me time reading a self improvement book or just binge watching a series on Netflix for an hour. You could complete like 1 and a half episodes on the way there and an equal amount on the way back. Hopefully, nobody is dumb enough to try to read from a book or watch a series while driving.

Once cars are self-driven; that'll be another story...public transit will loose that advantage.

Elon Musk is a rich multimillionaire, you do not need to be a multimillionaire to buy a used car in decent shape for under $10k and maintain it. Furthermore, even if we look at your $100/mo car insurance if you are paying more because you can't drive worth a crap that's a personal responsibility issue. Buying a used car, having a clean record, and being over 25 should mean your car insurance costs $100/mo or less. The problem I have here with the complaints about disparity in income is that it would seem anyone making more than a burger flipper at mcd's is the equivalent of Elon Musk with an elite attitude and capability of owning a personal vehicle, which is bullshit. Hell, the average beater on craigslist for under $5k with some minor cleanup I'd still rather sit in than deal with mass transit. If you think someone with a $5,000 car is some elitist rich asshole, maybe you need to get some life experience outside of whatever bubble you're in.

Furthermore, if someone is actually using mass transit at some of the absurd rates of $10+/day round trip just to flip burgers, maybe they need to find something closer if they're using the system for "poor people" and throwing that much of a percentage of their income at commuting as it is.
 
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
634
These are 2 of the common reasons people always trot out that it's supposedly impossible to get around by bike. Winter cycling is very possible, but even if everyone used cars all winter cities and their citizens would save massive amounts of money if more trips were taken by bike in other seasons.

A cargo bike can carry multiple kids and all their stuff. In fact, there are trailer setups that can put a pickup truck to shame! With proper infrastructure and depending on the city, you might even get the kids to school faster. Separated cycle tracks are also much safer than driving, as seen by the low numbers of fatalities in cities that take cycling seriously like Amsterdam and Copenhagen.


No one is suggesting that people can feasibly cycle the whole way for a 45 mile commute, but for relatively dense areas a train with a bike car can be just as quick as driving for trips like that. A car-only transit model might be the most sensible in Northern Illinois, don't know, I haven't been there. But the areas around major cities are badly in need of alternatives to driving and aren't getting them.

Your cargo bike isn't heated and if you are dumb enough to bike 2 kids in an unheated trailer on the typical winter commute in Ontario you will be arrested for child endangerment. Your argument is the typical claptrap from someone who's never actually had to commute in a suburban landscape in winter. Your bike will not make it through the berms with a trailer either and I challenge you to try. I doubt you've ever seen real weather. In Winnipeg it gets cold enough that your skin is ruined after 5 minutes. Imagine that in your lungs. Comparisons to Amsterdam is idiotic; it covers 219.4 km^2; the GTA is 7,125 km^2, why can't any of you greens do math? It does not scale.
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
395
I think if you could eliminate the homeless and the criminals from trains/mass transit it might be more popular. But hiring cops costs money so forget all that nonsense.

This is more of an issue of perception than reality. I'm from Detroit, and these are not things I worry about there, not have I ever in any other cities transport I've been on. I mean, I guess sometimes there is a negative smell, but other than that... mostly paranoia or making yourself a target.
 

Arcygenical

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
25,068
Not really, being homeless in itself isn't a crime. Arresting homeless just causes other problems (like filling up jails). But the homeless don't buy tickets, they just ride the trains because it's something to do, somewhat climate controlled, has people on there they can panhandle / beg for $$. If there was actual law enforcement on the trains, preventing people from riding that don't buy tickets, then there could be some reduction (I doubt it's a great solution, but it could only help) of the homeless on trains.

That may come across as sounding elitest, but I'm not trying to. Homelessness is a very real problem and needs real solutions. Policing the trains won't solve that problem, but it might reduce their numbers on the trains. The goal here is to increase ridership, not tackle the homeless problems.

Also, more cops on trains would cut down on the criminals / gangs who prey on the riders.

I have a serious solution to homelessness. Send them to the fucking sun.
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
395
I have a serious solution to homelessness. Send them to the fucking sun.

Advocating mass murder for people down on their luck? Dude. You have issues. Get help.

I don't know if you know much about psychology, but this kind of brazen disregard for human life is typical whenever we see genocide, warlords, fascism, mass murder, serial killers, etc. If you can not think of them as human, you can do whatever you want, and it doesn't matter and have consequences.

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...on-genocide-and-the-psychology-indifference-0
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
395
Public transit sucking is kind of a case of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Gets shitty funding, does it's job shittily, gets less funding.
THIS. People gripe about government stuff failing but they set it up for failure. Privatized stuff is often even worse as they suck money out of it and have no oversight... so nothing works. 'Murica, yeah!
 
Top