> Cars are popular because they solve a real problem for the overwhelming majority of people in the US.
To be clear: that "real problem" is a manufactured one. The overwhelming majority of people in the US live near urban centers, and could be served not just adequately but well by mass transit. That's how they were served a century ago, when we were a far less urbanized country; the numbers are even further in our favor now.
Where I live, public transit is faster than driving 90% of the time, the same speed 5% of the time, and slower the rest. Cycling is also generally faster than driving, and is perfectly comfortable with the right clothes throughout the year. And that's before we even consider the "fringe" benefits (like being able to read wherever I go, not having to find short- or long-term parking, and not polluting the neighborhood I live in).
> Where I live, public transit is faster than driving 90% of the time
Do you live in Manhattan? I can't think of anywhere else in the US where that could be true.
Commute to work here (pre-covid) was just under 30 minutes. On public transit, according to google maps, it's about 90 minutes. That's if schedule lines up just right with bus schedules, otherwise it is more time.
> Cycling is also generally faster than driving
As a frequent cyclist, I did ride to work at least once a week (pre-covid). But that takes 2hr 30min. It was great fun and exercise, but not really practical by any measure. And then I had to take a shower at work after arriving, so it was more like 3 hours home to desk.
> To be clear: that "real problem" is a manufactured one.
So it's not a manufactured problem, it is reality for mostly everyone.
I live in central Brooklyn, in a residential neighborhood. My commute (to lower Manhattan) is around 35 minutes door-to-door, including a 10 minute walk on each end. The equivalent drive would be about 50 minutes at the same time of day, not including parking.
My most recent cycling commute was just under 35 minutes as well; a bit over 7 miles.
“Manufactured” doesn’t mean it isn’t real, it means that it’s a problem we’ve created for ourselves. That, in turn, means we can undo it.
> Where I live, public transit is faster than driving 90% of the time, the same speed 5% of the time, and slower the rest.
Despite the benefits that you cite, you’re still selling something most people don’t want. Or, if they do use it they dislike it and still use a car for the majority of their other travel.
Do you have any numbers to substantiate this? Most people in NYC like the subway, even the ones who express grievances about cleanliness, crime, &c. It's a cornerstone of the city's convenience and culture.
At the turn of the century, most people didn't want cars on their city streets; that's what the article we're discussing is all about. What the average American (not just NYer) wants changes over time; I consider my support for public transit to be merely an investment in a perceptual shift that's already taking place.
So you think it’s a good idea to judge whether people like driving vs mass transit based on areas that have no mass transit vs areas which have both?
That seems illogical at best.
People in areas that have high quality mass transit almost always prefer mass transit over cars. And areas which have decent biking infrastructure overwhelmingly prefer biking over other alternatives.
> It may come as a surprise to people in NYC that, in fact, most people don't live in NYC.
What's the point of this? People in NYC overwhelmingly use public transit; they're a logical group to sample from. Correspondingly, it makes no sense to ask people who don't use public transit how they feel about it.
"Most people who utilize public transit" is a mixture of demographics, with overlap: there are a millions of Americans who live in dense urban areas and choose to take public transit because it's faster, cheaper, and more convenient than owning a care. There are also millions of Americans who are economically disenfranchised and rely on ailing bus networks to get to work. The two overlap, but the latter is much larger outside of major cities.
In brief: the US's failure to design and allocate public transit systems (a problem that's been more or less solved in every other country in the world) taints any objective measurement of public transit perception as a whole. If you look at the places where it's even done half right (like NYC), perception is extremely positive.
I live in a small city of about 60k. To get to work I drive through a city of 350k, 50k, 20k, then into a city of 250k. Each of these cities is 5-10 miles apart. It's a straight shot on the freeway, there isn't much traffic. We average 75mph on the freeway with room for people to go faster and slower. America is a big place. Problems New Yorkers have with cars/parking are different that much of the country.
Cars are popular because they're both useful and enjoy extraordinarily strong government support going back decades, both in explicit funding and also in regulatory policies. It's no surprise that the mode with the deck stacked in its favor managed to win.
Cars are popular because government has built infrastructure for them.
The idea that bicycling and mass transit are a novelty and dedicating 75% of the most valuable real estate in the world to tonnes of metal to transport 1 person at a time while killing 50k Americans a year is just normal is ridiculous and little more than a reflection of the pervasiveness of auto centric thinking.
Nobody (reasonable) is talking about making cycling the sole form of travel. It's one of many modes, including all forms of mass transit.