
What Elon Musk Doesn't Get About Urban Transit - atsneed
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/12/what-elon-musk-doesnt-get-about-urban-transit/548843/
======
em3rgent0rdr
> "Musk doesn’t want to share a vehicle with “a bunch of random strangers.”
> But the presence of random strangers is what a city is"

Yes. This is the essential fundamental pro & con of living in the city:
"There's a lot of other people nearby". If the benefits of this situation
don't outweigh the downsides, then maybe the city isn't right for you.

This is not to say that maybe by appealing to the rich people who don't like
associating with the rabble, he might have a successful business. But for the
vast majority of commuters, the downside of public transport is _not_ having
to be close to strangers but rather the inconvenience (in america cities) of
limited coverage and schedules.

I personally don't like noisy trains, but a simple fix could designate some
train cars to be no-talking, so I can more easily get work done.

~~~
closeparen
If you’re imagining getting work done, I don’t think you understand what
transit crowding is like. In cities with busy transit systems, getting a seat
is out of the question - the variable is how tightly you’ll be squished
against your fellow standees, and whether it will even be possible to squeeze
onto the train.

The problem is absolutely being too close to strangers. Still, going to
individual cabins is an over-reaction, what we need is longer and more
frequent trains so that people can at least have seats and/or room to breathe.

~~~
Fricken
Nobody uses transit anymore, it's too crowded.

~~~
closeparen
When your choices are “put up with transit” or “live somewhere else,” plenty
of people choose transit, grudgingly, for a while. But we can and should do
better.

~~~
Fricken
I was recently in Vancouver for a month and used transit daily. It's a well
oiled machine and not unpleasant to use.

This is in stark contrast to my home city, a more typically north American
city: sprawling, car-centric and any transport mode that isn't a motor vehicle
is compromised, and transit system exists to punish people for being poor.
Even using a car is compromised because of all the other cars, there's a
geometry problem there. Nobody is actually saving time, they're just spending
lots of money, running people over and generally making a mess. But you do
have a nice, protective shell to segregate you from strangers.

My primary experience living in different cities is 'put up with cars or live
somewhere else', and I don't even know where this mythical land unsullied by
the tyranny of the automobile might be, but I fantasize about it regularly.

~~~
alicorn
The Netherlands, Danmark and, to a lesser extent, Sweden are seriously
rethinking the automobile tyranny. I live in Sweden, and have no real need to
own a car, since public transportation and a bicycle solve pretty much all my
transportation needs.

------
godot
Not trying to troll, but one just needs to take a minute to get through a few
pages on [https://www.bartcrimes.com/](https://www.bartcrimes.com/) to see why
public transportation in America, at least in the bay area, is not pleasant. I
have first hand experience of taking Bart daily for a year or so, and even
been through being the victim of an assault while walking out of a Bart
station.

Perhaps public transportation works somewhere else, in other countries.
There's something about America that makes it not work. Someone pointed out
Japan to which Elon rebutted that it's too crowded. Trust me, trains in Japan
are more pleasant than here in the SF Bay area even considering how they cram
people in in Japan. I grew up in Hong Kong where cramming is also the norm. It
is not nearly as unpleasant as Bart.

For someone who lives in California, I see why Elon Musk considers existing
public transportation a failure right now.

~~~
taoistextremist
What's so terrible about Bay Area transit? I mean this genuinely since I've
never been to San Francisco so I've never used it, and I'm wondering why it
makes you think all American public transit is bad. I've used public transit
in two North American cities, Chicago and Montreal, and they seemed to work
fairly well, enough that I could kind of enjoy them if I wasn't in a rush
(which typically I wasn't since these were vacations). Maybe they weren't as
pretty as what I saw in Tokyo or Beijing, but they functioned fine and didn't
seem terrible in the least.

~~~
godot
I could be wrong about generalizing it to America in general, since I don't
have much experience outside of SF Bay and a little bit in NY (where I also
didn't have a pleasant experience, even as a tourist).

Trains in Hong Kong and Tokyo are at the very least clean, on time, for the
most part crime-less, and no matter what time you arrive, even if you miss a
train, there will be another one to your destination within 5 minutes (likely
2 minutes).

Bart is rarely on time, extremely unclean (encountering human feces is almost
a regular basis), crime-ridden (as shown in that link above), and if you live
anywhere outside of SF, missing a train usually means you have to wait 15-20
minutes for the next one (even during peak hours).

I consciously choose to drive in to SF downtown instead, even considering the
premium I have to pay for parking (easily $20 a day), and enduring through bay
bridge traffic. I know I'm also doing harm by carbon emission and adding to
traffic on the freeways and bridge, but it poses a personal risk (both
physical danger and health) to take Bart for myself.

------
InitialLastName
Elon Musk's livelihood depends on people wanting to live in separated housing
(so they can each have powerwalls and solar-paneled roofs) and wanting to move
through their regions in separated vehicles. It doesn't take Upton Sinclair to
understand why he would use every propaganda outlet he can find to push that
agenda.

~~~
mehrdadn
> Elon Musk's livelihood depends on people wanting to live in separated
> housing (so they can each have powerwalls and solar-paneled roofs) and
> wanting to move through their regions in separated vehicles. It doesn't take
> Upton Sinclair to understand why he would use every propaganda outlet he can
> find to push that agenda.

Somehow I don't get the feeling he's this selfish. If that's an agenda he's
pushing (which I don't know one way or another), I would expect it's because
he genuinely thinks it's better for society, not because he wants to make
himself feel good or rake in more profit. (To re-emphasize: it's not clear to
me he _is_ pushing this agenda.)

~~~
peeters
I don't think he can credibly argue it's better for society, he's probably
just a realist. The hunger for detached houses and independent cars has had a
long opportunity to subside, but hasn't. So might as well make greener
independent cars and detached houses.

Your carbon footprint commuting on high-occupancy diesel trains while living
in a 50 year old highrise is usually going to be significantly lower than
commuting in a Tesla and living in green detached house.

~~~
danans
> Your carbon footprint commuting on high-occupancy diesel trains while living
> in a 50 year old highrise is usually going to be significantly lower than
> commuting in a Tesla and living in green detached house.

I think it could be a tossup, depending on how green the house really is. But
making a truly low carbon footprint detached suburban house is still
prohibitively expensive in some climates, due to space and water heating
needs.

If you take the same green tech and apply it in a multidwelling context, then
it becomes more economically feasible.

You see something similar today with Internet services like iPass that provide
gigabit Ethernet service only in buildings with more than a certain number of
units.

------
ared38
I'm not impressed with either side in this argument.

Jarrett Walker is confusing capacity with crowding. It's ridiculous that he
can't admit having someone's underarm shoved into your face during peak hours
does in fact suck.

Meanwhile Musk is an idiot if he actually thinks single occupancy self driving
cars will reduce traffic (I don't think he does). If sitting in traffic
becomes more pleasant because you'll be watching tv, more people will choose
to sit in traffic. Adding tunnels won't help if you're still wasting a car-
sized space on a tiny human.

Just running more buses and actually policing harassment on them would make
transit both more convenient and pleasant without giving up the capacity
that's essential to move an entire city worth of people around. It doesn't
have to be rocket science.

~~~
tbabb
Agree. I suspect Musk doesn't get how efficient good public transport can be
(NYC when the system is working well), and the author doesn't get how
substandard most public transit systems _are_.

I have strong doubts that single- or low-occupancy vehicles could outcompete
trains or buses on efficiency. I also think public transit could be way better
than it is. I'm not sure I buy Musk's vision (which does seem out-of-touch),
and I definitely don't buy the author's position that "nothing is wrong".

~~~
dzhiurgis
It's probably one of those cases where less efficient node in the system makes
entire system more efficient overall. Perhaps we need to reduce car use by 20%
to make transport 300% more comfortable, practical, attractive.

I remember seeing pics of a concept bus Tesla was rumoured to manufacture,
where every seat has it's own doors and personal area. So maybe it's capacity
is half normal bus, but 20x a car. Even if it works like Uber Pool, overall
it's a net win.

Finally, I don't think he's trying to disrupt public transport entirely,
rather to introduce better options.

------
marcell
I like people too but not random train passengers. They smell bad, are
unattractive and grouchy. I don’t want to strike up conversations with randos.
They make the train dirty.

I don’t think this makes me “elitist.” The reason rich people don’t take
public transit is because no one likes it, but the rich are more able to
afford alternatives. A trend of history is extending luxuries of the few to
the many.

This looks to me like CityLab is emotionally attached to the current transit
system, with all its flaws, and is a bit annoyed that someone is working on a
better alternative.

~~~
foldr
It sounds like you may be overgeneralizing your experiences in a particular
city. At least here in London, the people you see on trains are a broad
crossection of the general public, and are no smellier or less attractive (not
sure why this matters?) than anyone you're likely to run into on the street.

So, no, it is not the case that "no-one" likes public transport. I like it
fine, and experience none of the issues with it that you seem to. I would
generally prefer to get the tube as compared to e.g. an Uber, even if there
were no price difference.

~~~
ghaff
I'm sure there are, on average, demographic differences between who takes the
subway, who takes a taxi/Uber, and who has a reserved black car. That said, I
don't disagree with you in general. In cities with good public transit systems
where transit is a genuinely easier way to get around much of the time, many
people take the subway even if they could afford something else. I know that's
true for me in Boston, New York, and London to name 3 cities. I do take BART
in SF but pretty much only to get in from the airport.

~~~
foldr
If some options are more expensive than others then there are bound to be
demographic differences, _even if the more expensive options aren 't better_.
But so what? What's so terrible about traveling with people outside your
demographic?

~~~
ghaff
Absolutely nothing. Not sure what I said to imply that.

------
joekrill
I can't help but get the sense that this is just a closed-minded way to think
about things. Yes, if you've been studying transportation for decades you have
probably got drilled into your head that "this is how public transit is
supposed to work".

I'm sure there were plenty of people who made similar arguments about taxis
when Uber started up. Or about horses when cars were invented. Or about
planes, electricity, etc. Any fairly revolutionary technology started with
most people saying "you're insane". I mean you don't even have to look far --
many of Musk's other accomplishments were scorned, too. Reusable rockets?
Electric cars people actually _want_? That's ridiculous! Until it isn't...

------
mark-r
To find out why transit isn't transporting 100% of the commuters, you can't
look to the people who are using it - you need to ask the people who aren't. I
think Musk's comments get to some important reasons why transit utilization
isn't higher. If you simply sweep it under the rug and claim that transit's
goal isn't to be appropriate for 100% of the people, you're throwing away an
opportunity.

------
paulus_magnus2
Cities just don't work if everyone drives their own personal car. And keeps it
parked 90% of the time. Perhaps when autonomous cars arrive we'll be driven
around more but right now public transport is faster, more convenient,
cheaper. [top gear race across London]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_POxZSkaU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_POxZSkaU)

“Transit requires sharing space with strangers, which is icky.” Is this an
American thing?? What about a sport stadium, music event, lots of strangers to
share space with?

~~~
lev99
It's not only the car being parked, but the traffic during peak travel times
that make cars bad. Roads filled with Autonomous cars might be 10x more
efficient then roads filled with cars with drivers, but autonomous buses are
100x more efficient and trains can be 1000x more efficient.

------
pmc1
I think the author is misrepresenting Musk's views and statements. Musk isn't
condemning public transit, he knows it plays a valuable role in large cities.
Musk is simply saying that there are ways to make it better. Also the
statement below is sort of troubling:

> This means that if you decide not to ride transit because it’s too crowded,
> somebody else will be happy to take your place there, delivering the same
> level of efficiency.

That statement is fallacious. Overcrowded public transits can be a serious
danger in the case of an accident and they should not be overlooked simply
because someone else is willing to take your place. For example, on my morning
commute in san diego the doors on the light rails can barely close due to
being overcrowded and people jamming in to not miss the light rail. Sure its
efficient in that a lot of people are riding, but if an accident happens we
have no room to maneuver.

~~~
walshemj
And the US Rail system has a terrible safety record there have been no fatal
accidents (excluding person on the line) on the UK rail system in the last
decade.

The USA has mad many and the number of passengers caried is orders of
magnitude less

~~~
vonmoltke
> The USA has mad many and the number of passengers caried is orders of
> magnitude less

The only way I can see to arrive at that statement is to count all train
accidents but only Amtrak ridership (total US rail ridership is about 570MM
rides, but Amtrak is only about 30MM of that).

------
sologoub
Author is very focused on "vs the elites" topic. However, the strangers
comment is about safety. Even the quote used from Musk states that one of
those strangers could be a serial killer.

That's not an elite-only concern. Staying alive and safe is a pretty basic
need that has little to do with socio-economic status.

The question is whether the fear is more widespread in those more fortunate is
debateable, but mass transit does have that weakness. From pickpockets to mass
robberies (recent BART events for example) to acts of terrorism, when you have
a concentration of people, they are vulnerable to being targeted.

There are also questions of hygiene - I once had to sit next to a person
covered head to toe, including face, in some sort of orangish dust, minus the
outline of the goggles he must have been wearing, probably from some sort of
construction. I wasn't sure I wanted risk breathing that in, but it's a public
space. Still, health is not an exclusively elite concern. We have asbestos
laws for a reason, for example.

I would love to use mass transit that went close to where I want to start/stop
(5-10 min walk), went in reasonable intervals (5-15 mins), was safe, reliable,
clean-ish and cheaper than a car (with parking, maintenance, ins and all other
expenses included).

The only really good point the article makes that is often missed is the
distinction of crowded vs overcrowded. Not everyone should get a seat, but
those who need it, should.

------
mschuster91
>> And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial
killer, OK, great

>> Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people

These two points of what Musk says are the core point, I believe. With a tight
enough, and especially, well timed, mesh of rail, light-rail (tram) and buses
you can solve the "doesn't take me where I want" problem, and for example in
Munich it is solved well.

What is not solved is the "strangers" issue: cities all over the world have a
yuge homeless persons "problem" \- and this is what I dislike about public
transport. Cities must tackle the (growing!) problem of homelessness first, if
they want to increase acceptance of public transport. Give drunks, junkies and
hobos safe places to stay, both during night and day, and lots of problems
associated with public transport will go away. Often enough, public transport
and its stations are the only thing that's both open 24/7 and warm...

------
danans
I often hear from well-off suburban Americans who have traveled in Europe how
much they enjoy using the well-maintained transit systems in those countries,
but not here in the US. Part of this no doubt is due to the fact that those
European systems are more comprehensive and convenient.

But there is also the reality that those transit systems don't have to serve
as temporary shelter for the homeless, since those countries deal with
homelessness directly.

Americans' views on mass transit are tainted by the unfortunate (and
incorrect) conflation of mass transit with our unaddressed social ills.

~~~
zionic
I'm not sure this is as pervasive as you suggest. I personally found the tube
pretty terrible around heathrow and friends who studied abroad in various
parts of europe complained about trains being late (Eurorail pass).

The fact is nothing will beat the appeal of point to point travel for the
individual. In my experience it seems Europeans are, on average, more willing
than Americans to sacrifice personal comforts for efficiency. I saw this in
everything from elevator size to hotel room configuration, and even road
layout.

~~~
danans
> I personally found the tube pretty terrible around heathrow and friends who
> studied abroad in various parts of europe complained about trains being late
> (Eurorail pass).

Really, both of our arguments on this point are anecdotal, but there is a
pretty solid body of evidence that European mass transit systems are far more
efficient at moving large numbers of people efficiently between important
destinations.

> In my experience it seems Europeans are, on average, more willing than
> Americans to sacrifice personal comforts for efficiency. I saw this in
> everything from elevator size to hotel room configuration, and even road
> layout.

This isn't because of something essential about Europeans. It's a consequence
of their urban infrastructure developing under space constraints, and doing so
prior to the mass adoption of the automobile. Today, many American cities are
approaching the levels of density of European cities without transit systems
built out over time to handle the congestion that the density brings, largely
because of the single-occupancy commute vehicle.

~~~
ahartmetz
I had similar thoughts in Tokyo - Japan has even higher population density
than any large European country. Tokyo is amazingly quiet and clean (and
therefore relaxing, if you don't have to work 12 hours a day...) for such a
dense city. The cleanliness I had heard about before, but the lack of
avoidable noise struck me only when I was there.

------
throwanem
Maybe it's not a fair reading, but all I can see in commentary like Musk's is
"I want to live in a city, except I don't, you know, actually want to _live in
a city_. I want the part of living in a city that I find convenient, but not
the rest of it. And that should totally be a thing that it's possible to do. I
don't care if it works for anyone else. I care if it works for _me_."

Which, I mean, if that's your perspective on the matter, then sure, you do
you. Reality, and other people, may choose to differ.

------
rsbartram
He is a forward thinking individual. Those types of people are always open to
criticism for ideas that can change and revolutionize the norm. You don't need
to look any farther than Tesla and SpaceX. As a resident of Los Angeles I
support his innovation and ideas behind alleviating traffic congestion. His
work with The Boring Company and Hyperloop are simple examples of that.

[https://latechnews.org/elon-musk-bores-152-meters-closer-
dis...](https://latechnews.org/elon-musk-bores-152-meters-closer-disruption/)
[https://latechnews.org/hyperloop-one-
reaches-192-mph/](https://latechnews.org/hyperloop-one-reaches-192-mph/)
[https://latechnews.org/hyperloop-one-high-speed-project-
test...](https://latechnews.org/hyperloop-one-high-speed-project-test/)

------
xupybd
> Effective transit doesn’t go to your door

I don't know if this is true. If someone finds an efficient way to do this
there is nothing wrong with it. Current transit is limited by resources and
technology given sufficient increases in either going to you door is not a
problem.

------
stmfreak
It is one thing to claim transit is succeeding by cramming people into cars
and another to wonder if all those people would choose private cars if the
costs and time were equivalent.

It seems most city planners have assumed transit is the only answer and
invested accordingly. Musk is appealing to individual preference for space and
privacy and investing accordingly.

------
vbuwivbiu
Another false dichotomy. We need both public transport and cars. I like public
transport because it brings total strangers together - a much-needed thing in
this day and age.

By the way Musk, psychos drive cars too: witness the new terrorist tool, the
car, mounting the sidewalk and mowing people down.

And think of the trust you place in total strangers every time you drive down
the highway.

------
tixiv_
I think people don't want all the cars for one person on the road. For moving
one person to and from the city current cars are too big, weight too much, ...

My preferred robo-taxi that may pick me up every morning is the C-1 from Lit
Motors.

[http://litmotors.com/c1/](http://litmotors.com/c1/)

------
yohann305
this whole situation reminds me of all the naysayers Musk proved wrong twice
already. Electric cars will never happen. A private space company, Musk is
insane. Better public transportation, who does he think he is... Who else
can't wait to have Musk prove them wrong? ... I can't wait

~~~
rmah
1) No one ever said "electric cars will never happen". There were electric and
hybrid vehicles before Tesla even existed.

2) SpaceX is no more a "private space company" than the United Space
Alliance/United Launch Alliance that builds rockets for NASA and others. Or
both are. Both SpaceX and USA/ULA operate under similar models: clients both
government and private pay them to build rockets.

I do not understand why people think NASA builds rockets. They don't.

Rob

~~~
greglindahl
In 2017, ULA launched 8 government payloads and 0 commercial.

In 2017, SpaceX launched 6 government payloads and 11 (or 12) commercial
payloads.

------
rdiddly
The other thing is, almost any problem you can pick out with transit is
basically _not enough_ transit, not too much transit. Most of the money gets
funneled away elsewhere -- to cars and freight. Spend some real money on it
and see what happens.

------
wayanon
I'm a Tesla fan but in Elon's worldview would public transit be ok if it was
barely used and all passengers were college educated and polite?

------
sjclemmy
It seems to me that Musk’s goal isn’t transport on Earth. It’s transit on the
moon or Mars. View his suggestions in that context and they make sense.

~~~
straws
I for one fully support Musk's efforts to hurl himself into space.

------
straws
I for one fully support Musk's efforts to hurl himself into space.

------
junkscience2017
I can see why Citylab would favor a system like BART...making everyone equally
miserable (aka "levelling") is a primary motivation of the left

Citylabs fantasy community is an endless stream of apartment buildings
virtually fenced in by taxation (so you can't even dream of escape) and
regulation (so you could only ever get as far as public transportation would
take you). all ruled by people who post on HN. no thanks!

------
1_2__4
Oh look more anti-car propaganda from citylab posted to HN, must be a day with
y in it.

~~~
chroem-
Honestly it's beginning to become a parody of itself how people in the bay
area can't imagine life outside of a hypercrowded cityscape that has temperate
weather year round.

~~~
tomjakubowski
Most of the Bay Area is not even close to being hypercrowded. In fact, that's
exactly the problem with the Bay: no town wants to get denser and build enough
housing to meet the demand.

------
jnordwick
_" So Musk can imply that there’s something wrong with transit because it’s
too crowded—an example of the Yogi Berra fallacy—but cities and transit
agencies shouldn’t care. If they’re crowded, they’re succeeding."_

That seems like an enormous leap in logic. Saying agencies shouldn't care
about overcrowding seems flippant. They most definitely should care about
rider experience. Soviet bread lines were massively long, but that didn't mean
they were hugely successful.

I love the usefulness of the subway when it actually runs on time. I hate the
experience most of the time. Next time I hear "Showtime!" I want to punch
somebody.

------
adventured
The article is holding up an ideal premise that is never going to happen
(subways everywhere), as a counter to a viable plan that will be a real
improvement over a mediocre existing system (the one we have now).

If the US was ever going to do mass traditional subways, it would have been in
the prior 50 years when it could have maybe afforded to. It's _never_ going to
happen now, not under any scenario imaginable. Combined with the disastrous
cost, time it takes, zoning issues etc. to build above ground in most US
locations (eg the California debacle). That's what Musk realized and it's why
he is doing a partial patch on the mess with the boring company approach.

There is no plausible alternative. Musk's approach can give us a significant
improvement over what we have. Wishing for fantasy subway lines everywhere,
that would cost trillions of dollars the US is never going to have to spend on
such things ( _particularly_ in the next 20-30 years, as entitlement
obligations alone are already set to bankrupt the US Government), is
pointless.

~~~
typomatic
Why do you think the boring company plan is so much more viable than improving
public transit?

Note that I am not using your strawman here (subways everywhere) as that's not
the point--the point is better public transit, which includes subways, busses,
etc. That seems like a much richer target than building an entirely unproven
tech.

