this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
661 points (99.4% liked)
Memes
45228 readers
1294 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
…are far too slow to be a practical substitute for a car.
In the US? Yep! We really need working public transit that isn’t seen as a poor person’s “punishment”.
Public transit only works in densely-packed cities. I do not want to live in a densely-packed city. In suburbs, where life is relatively pleasant, public transit is agonizingly slow compared to cars.
It works pretty well here in Berlin. The trains go far to the suburbs and beyond, are fast and comfortable. You pay 49 euros a month and can travel anywhere in the country with the ticket. Most of them go even at night.
Well, why don't you compare? Open up Google Maps. Choose two points in the suburbs, and see how long it takes to travel between them by car versus by public transit.
I did the same, between my apartment complex and a nearby business, and the estimates are 12 minutes by car and 47 minutes by bus. Main problem: there's a transfer in the middle of this route where I'd have to wait 11 minutes for the next bus to arrive.
I tried again with a different business, and got a direct bus route with no transfers and exactly the same route I'd take in a car. This is the best-case scenario for public transit, but going by car is still significantly faster: 10 minutes by car, or 17 minutes by bus.
Usually either one bus or one train. 10 minutes longer, sometimes 15. And so much cheaper and better for the environment.
Well, that problem can be solved with more public transit, at least. More buses means less time waiting for a bus to show up.
But, even where I live, where there are plenty of buses to go around, they're still slower than cars.
This is highly dependent on what kind of built environment you happen to live in. In sanely built places, it's very much not true.
You mean densely-packed cities? I would not call that sane. I would call that hellish. You have no privacy, no yard for your kids and pets to play in, almost no living space, a building manager threatening you with homelessness and catastrophic debt unless you bow to his every whim, and you pay a king's ransom for the dubious privilege of living like that. No thank you.
A lot of untruths to unpack here.
There are forms of non-SFH density that offer plenty of privacy.
The existence of rowhouses makes this false. It's completely possible to have a yard while not living in densities that support public transportation and cycling.
Higher densities also usually come with common amenities like parks, where your children can play, and also walk to/cycle to without risking their lives. Their friends can also walk/cycle there.
Baseless falsehood.
Higher densities does not equal living in a rental apartment, false again
As opposed to living in a house which you don't have to incur any debt whatsoever to obtain? Hell of a statement.
Cities are usually more expensive on account of the fact that people actually want to live there, because people want to be close to the things that they want to do, and not have to spend their lives sitting in traffic behind the wheel all their lives. Lots of places have also tax incentivized living in suburban densities to the detriment of those living in higher densities, so it's not like the higher cost is a law of nature.
Generally poor take.
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I lived in a city for four years. I found it miserable, and it's not for everyone. In fact I'd argue that you seemingly advocating for us to live in one big sprawl is the dystopian poor take here.
Namely?
Rowhouses are just single-family housing subdivisions without gaps between the buildings. They are not high-density housing and they are not any more supportive of public transportation and cycling.
Furthermore, they combine the worst of both worlds: they're little denser and therefore little better for the environment than single-family housing, but they do have a building manager whose whims you have to obey.
My cats aren't going to happily wander around in a park full of humans. They're going to run and hide in terror. Parks are not a substitute for a yard.
My parents' single-family house has about three times the square footage of my apartment. That's a fact, not a falsehood.
Irrelevant. Even if you “own” a part of a building, someone is in charge of the building as a whole—the building manager—and everyone living in that building must obey the building manager's whims, no matter how cruel, or face fines and/or confiscation of “their” home.
Ownership of parts of buildings is a legal fiction ripe for abuse. Only entire buildings, and the plots of land on which they stand, can be truly owned.
“Buying” a condo incurs debt in exactly the same way as buying a house, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Well, I certainly can't imagine why.
A minor inconvenience, compared to everything that's wrong with city life.
The feeling is mutual.