4 ms·

The whole model of needing to own your own transportation devices is flawed. 9/10 times, I'm moving from one location with many other people in it to another l

The whole model of needing to own your own transportation devices is flawed. 9/10 times, I'm moving from one location with many other people in it to another location with many other people. I would prefer not needing to own any medium in order to move between them, but instead be able to use a public service to do so. Bus, tram, metro, citybike, scooter. I'd really rather not own stuff with really high capital costs, like cars. At this point, the only reason to own anything more expensive than a bike is bad city planning and infrastructure.

usaphp 7y ago
For a single person - probably, but most people have kids. It’s much more complicated to use public transport with small kids, they require a lot of stuff to be carried around for them
- MandieD 7y ago
  I see loads of mothers with small children on the underground and buses in Nürnberg if I’m traveling outside of rush hour. Having observed my German and American sisters-in-law, it comes down to what you think the kid really needs. The German sister-in-law can get everything into a backpack and midsized rolling suitcase to bring my niece along for the train ride to her parents at the other end of Germany. The American sister-in-law traded in her Tahoe for a Suburban when my nephew was born and manages to fill the cargo compartment for a week at her parents, where she still has her own room.
mdorazio 7y ago
And, you know, basic financial planning... For the vast majority of people, renting basic unsubsidized transit methods on a daily basis costs far more than owning and operating your own. Good for you if your financial situation allows you to ignore that fact, but it’s rather yuppy bubble thinking to assume that applies to everyone.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  Aren't you ignoring the hundreds of billions in public subsidies that your "basic unsubsidized transit methods" enjoy? Cars are expensive and our emphasis on subsidizing car travel at the federal, state, county and city level is an enormous regressive tax on the poorest members of our society for whom $1000 or $5000 is an impossible amount of money.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    Even if you make an apples to apples comparison (cost of renting a scooter vs cost of buying one outright), renting doesn't really make sense if it's something you want to use regularly. For a 10 minute commute daily commute, the break even point for buying a scooter vs renting one comes in less than 60 days.
    - ryan_lane 7y ago
      This s only true if you are buying a good, reliable scooter, which requires a high up-front cost that many people can't afford. Look up the boots theory of sociological unfairness. You're able to save money this way because you can afford something sturdy and reliable, whereas poor folks, if they buy something, buy something that is cheap and will break quickly. They'll need to do this over and over again, which in the end causes them to spend considerably more money than you. Rental scooters (and bikes and e-bikes) may feel like they're more expensive in the end, but they're generally much cheaper, when you consider repairs or replacement, and especially when you consider theft (which will be covered by your insurance, but poor folks don't have that). Also, most scooter/bike rental companies have outreach programs for poor communities, which drastically lower the cost, or provide service for free.
- zymhan 7y ago
  Basic financial planning would indicate that owning a money losing asset (i.e. car) is not a good idea. I can assure you I've spent far less not owning a car, even with every Uber ride, car rental, scooter rental, transit, and taxi ride.
logifail 7y ago
> The whole model of needing to own your own transportation devices is flawed. 99% of all our family journeys begin and end at our home. Happily we own two (ICE) vehicles, they're sitting outside the house right now ready to be used tomorrow. (As an aside) I've just booked a flight for Sunday (o/w flight $46 including all taxes and fees). I'm flying the best part of 600mi, so I've booked a rental car at the destination airport. It's going to cost me $72 for three days rental, including all taxes and fees. None of this stuff is new...
- zymhan 7y ago
  I'm not sure how this refutes the idea that you don't need to own a car in a well-designed city
  - mantas 7y ago
    Don't need, but it's still damn handy. And a "well-designed city" is usually based on assumption that all people are +/- identical. Well, guess what, different people have different preferences... Source: european
    - megablast 7y ago
      Sure, but also incredibly dangerous, costly, polluting and selfish.
      - mantas 7y ago
        Human life in general causes danger, costs, polluting and is selfish. Meanwhile I find "well designed city" environment bad to my mental health. Who (or what?) is it "well designed" for?
        iknowstuff 7y ago
        Well your finding is wrong. Well designed cities, which are dense and encourage walking, have lots of small businesses along the sidewalk etc., lead to lower occurrence of loneliness and depression (vs. suburban areas).
Hasz 7y ago
Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option. I have no desire to make 10 stops before I get where I'm going. I also have zero desire to rent my modes, as that encourages literally rent seeking behavior. Either we need to figure out how to drop off and pickup passengers at speed, or penalize individualized transport that is space inefficient (like cars). Good luck pursuing the latter in the US; punitive measure seem to work elsewhere. I think the way forward is compact private transport, like bikes, scooters, walking, etc, augmented by a robust mass public transit. Unfortunately, that mix implies a expensive re-configuring of most American cities.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- robrenaud 7y ago
  > Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option. This isn't true if you are in a dense city with good public transit. This is currently mid day (3 PM), and it's about 30% faster (21 minutes vs 29 minutes) to go from my current location in Manhattan to a bar I enjoy hanging out in Brooklyn via public transit than car, according to Google Maps. It would be even better around rush hour.
  - jtcruthers 7y ago
    There are maybe 2 or 3 cities in the entire United States that are dense enough with good enough public transportation. The vast majority of the population cannot relate.
    - jgwil2 7y ago
      GP is refuting the idea that public transit is inherently the slowest mode of transportation by providing an instructive counter-example. If the vast majority of the population cannot relate, that's a product of policy choices that favor sparse development in most of the country.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    In the same way it isn't true that healthcare in the US isn't unaffordable as long as you're a successful businessman with lots of savings. Maybe technically correct, but useless to most people.
ip26 7y ago
That works for mass transport like bus, tram, metro. For individual transport, it doesn't make much sense, any more than it would make sense to rent a car 24/7/365. It would work better for individual transport if there was balanced multidirectional flow around the clock. Instead we have mostly-unidirectional flow centered around narrow times of day.

usaphp 7y ago

For a single person - probably, but most people have kids. It’s much more complicated to use public transport with small kids, they require a lot of stuff to be carried around for them

MandieD 7y ago
I see loads of mothers with small children on the underground and buses in Nürnberg if I’m traveling outside of rush hour. Having observed my German and American sisters-in-law, it comes down to what you think the kid really needs. The German sister-in-law can get everything into a backpack and midsized rolling suitcase to bring my niece along for the train ride to her parents at the other end of Germany. The American sister-in-law traded in her Tahoe for a Suburban when my nephew was born and manages to fill the cargo compartment for a week at her parents, where she still has her own room.

mdorazio 7y ago

And, you know, basic financial planning... For the vast majority of people, renting basic unsubsidized transit methods on a daily basis costs far more than owning and operating your own. Good for you if your financial situation allows you to ignore that fact, but it’s rather yuppy bubble thinking to assume that applies to everyone.

jschwartzi 7y ago
Aren't you ignoring the hundreds of billions in public subsidies that your "basic unsubsidized transit methods" enjoy? Cars are expensive and our emphasis on subsidizing car travel at the federal, state, county and city level is an enormous regressive tax on the poorest members of our society for whom $1000 or $5000 is an impossible amount of money.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  Even if you make an apples to apples comparison (cost of renting a scooter vs cost of buying one outright), renting doesn't really make sense if it's something you want to use regularly. For a 10 minute commute daily commute, the break even point for buying a scooter vs renting one comes in less than 60 days.
  - ryan_lane 7y ago
    This s only true if you are buying a good, reliable scooter, which requires a high up-front cost that many people can't afford. Look up the boots theory of sociological unfairness. You're able to save money this way because you can afford something sturdy and reliable, whereas poor folks, if they buy something, buy something that is cheap and will break quickly. They'll need to do this over and over again, which in the end causes them to spend considerably more money than you. Rental scooters (and bikes and e-bikes) may feel like they're more expensive in the end, but they're generally much cheaper, when you consider repairs or replacement, and especially when you consider theft (which will be covered by your insurance, but poor folks don't have that). Also, most scooter/bike rental companies have outreach programs for poor communities, which drastically lower the cost, or provide service for free.
zymhan 7y ago
Basic financial planning would indicate that owning a money losing asset (i.e. car) is not a good idea. I can assure you I've spent far less not owning a car, even with every Uber ride, car rental, scooter rental, transit, and taxi ride.

logifail 7y ago

> The whole model of needing to own your own transportation devices is flawed. 99% of all our family journeys begin and end at our home. Happily we own two (ICE) vehicles, they're sitting outside the house right now ready to be used tomorrow. (As an aside) I've just booked a flight for Sunday (o/w flight $46 including all taxes and fees). I'm flying the best part of 600mi, so I've booked a rental car at the destination airport. It's going to cost me $72 for three days rental, including all taxes and fees. None of this stuff is new...

zymhan 7y ago
I'm not sure how this refutes the idea that you don't need to own a car in a well-designed city
- mantas 7y ago
  Don't need, but it's still damn handy. And a "well-designed city" is usually based on assumption that all people are +/- identical. Well, guess what, different people have different preferences... Source: european
  - megablast 7y ago
    Sure, but also incredibly dangerous, costly, polluting and selfish.
    - mantas 7y ago
      Human life in general causes danger, costs, polluting and is selfish. Meanwhile I find "well designed city" environment bad to my mental health. Who (or what?) is it "well designed" for?
      - iknowstuff 7y ago
        Well your finding is wrong. Well designed cities, which are dense and encourage walking, have lots of small businesses along the sidewalk etc., lead to lower occurrence of loneliness and depression (vs. suburban areas).

Hasz 7y ago

Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option. I have no desire to make 10 stops before I get where I'm going. I also have zero desire to rent my modes, as that encourages literally rent seeking behavior. Either we need to figure out how to drop off and pickup passengers at speed, or penalize individualized transport that is space inefficient (like cars). Good luck pursuing the latter in the US; punitive measure seem to work elsewhere. I think the way forward is compact private transport, like bikes, scooters, walking, etc, augmented by a robust mass public transit. Unfortunately, that mix implies a expensive re-configuring of most American cities.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
robrenaud 7y ago
> Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option. This isn't true if you are in a dense city with good public transit. This is currently mid day (3 PM), and it's about 30% faster (21 minutes vs 29 minutes) to go from my current location in Manhattan to a bar I enjoy hanging out in Brooklyn via public transit than car, according to Google Maps. It would be even better around rush hour.
- jtcruthers 7y ago
  There are maybe 2 or 3 cities in the entire United States that are dense enough with good enough public transportation. The vast majority of the population cannot relate.
  - jgwil2 7y ago
    GP is refuting the idea that public transit is inherently the slowest mode of transportation by providing an instructive counter-example. If the vast majority of the population cannot relate, that's a product of policy choices that favor sparse development in most of the country.
- TylerE 7y ago
  In the same way it isn't true that healthcare in the US isn't unaffordable as long as you're a successful businessman with lots of savings. Maybe technically correct, but useless to most people.

ip26 7y ago

That works for mass transport like bus, tram, metro. For individual transport, it doesn't make much sense, any more than it would make sense to rent a car 24/7/365. It would work better for individual transport if there was balanced multidirectional flow around the clock. Instead we have mostly-unidirectional flow centered around narrow times of day.