08 Apr 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorra"Public transport is, in general, more fuel efficient than cars even if they are running significantly below full capacity."
No one is saying public transport will eliminate pollution or accidents, nor would that be required for an externality to be present.
Public transport is, in general, more fuel efficient than cars even if they are running significantly below full capacity.
I don't believe in a grand conspiracy to create congestion, although in many cases congestio ...[text shortened]... ould contribute because you benefit from others using it, compared to them using cars instead.
You are dreaming. I see city buses most of the time carrying less than five people.
Portland, OR was designed with spoke system of rail transit, with stops at subdivisions. The downtown is intentionally barricaded to prevent auto traffic access, and the public system still is underutilized.
"You should contribute because you benefit from others using it, compared to them using cars instead."
How? If the five people riding the bus were in their own cars, traffic flow would be smoother. They would be going to their destination, not to someplace in the vicinity. I would not have to watch out for the reckless bus driver who simply pulls out in front of me because his vehicle outweighs mine. I'm not seeing any benefits, other than a lighter wallet because I'm paying for something other people use.
Mind you, public transport is pretty sparse where I live, and I consider that a good thing. If it were to grow, I would move.
08 Apr 11
Originally posted by normbenignIt's possible bus transport in your area is oversubsidized, or run by idiots, or both. Around 20 or so electric trams stop near my house every hour and they frequently carry 100+ people and generally are packed during peak hours. Of course public transport isn't of much use in sparsely populated, rural areas.
"Public transport is, in general, more fuel efficient than cars even if they are running significantly below full capacity."
You are dreaming. I see city buses most of the time carrying less than five people.
Portland, OR was designed with spoke system of rail transit, with stops at subdivisions. The downtown is intentionally barricaded to preven ...[text shortened]... sparse where I live, and I consider that a good thing. If it were to grow, I would move.
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPopulation density is one of the biggest differences between the US and Europe. It is one of the major reasons why policies that are workable in Europe simply are not in the US.
It's possible bus transport in your area is oversubsidized, or run by idiots, or both. Around 20 or so electric trams stop near my house every hour and they frequently carry 100+ people and generally are packed during peak hours. Of course public transport isn't of much use in sparsely populated, rural areas.
11 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't think Europeans were ever groomed into developing as desperate a need for the automobile as have the American's. For American's it represents so much more than just transport. It cuts to the heart of their notions of freedom and individuality. Plus I would hazard a guess and say that historically it has been cheaper to buy, register and run a vehicle in the states than a comparatively sized and optioned vehicle elsewhere. Relatively low oil prices compared to other developed countries has surely helped. I would say that the differential between owning a car and taking public transport is heavily skewed in favor of car ownership in the States.
There are plenty of sparsely populated areas in Europe.
I would argue that even if public transport was a lot cheaper and a much more efficient way to get around, it would still not take hold much more than it already has in America. For Americans the car is all about agency and perceived notions of adequacy. Its about not being at the mercy of someone else's timetable. Its about not being dependent on someone else's service.
11 Apr 11
Originally posted by EladarI find it odd you would say such a thing without checking the numbers. Norway for example has a population density of 12.5/km², while the US has a population density of 33.7/km².
Nothing close to the US.
Finland: 16/km²
Sweden: 20.6/km²
Estonia: 29/km²
Latvia: 35/km²
Belarus: 47/km²