5 ms·

"For Philadelphia, the biggest-ticket poverty-reduction item is expanding transportation access" It looks like cities need to focus more on subsidized mass tra

by fma 10y ago

"For Philadelphia, the biggest-ticket poverty-reduction item is expanding transportation access" It looks like cities need to focus more on subsidized mass transportation. I live in Atlanta where the bottom line is ALWAYS scrutinized. Our mass transportation system, MARTA, must be profitable. When it's not profitable, a certain segment of society always criticizes it. They don't think of the impacts to society of providing cheap, reliable and convenient transportation. The only impact they think when MARTA is up and running, or expanded, is that the 'unwanted' (of certain skin color) have the opportunity to come to their neighborhood to loot and plunder. I had just read an article that my county is adding more toll lanes (http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/work-begins-i-85-express-lane-extension-gwinnett/nr9ZT/ http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/work-begins-i-85-express-...). That is exactly the opposite of what this proposal is recommending. My county is charging money for express lanes to bypass traffic - essentially a privilege of the wealthy - rather than create a long term solution for everyone (and the construction is using tax payer money!)

wutbrodo 10y ago
> Our mass transportation system, MARTA, must be profitable. When it's not profitable, a certain segment of society always criticizes it. They don't think of the impacts to society of providing cheap, reliable and convenient transportation. An easy way to shut up the idiots like these is to point out the extent to which miles traveled are subsidized for car drivers (invariably more than for transit, due to how horribly inefficient cars are). When they're forced to imagine a society without transport subsidies instead of one with only _their_ favored transport subsidies, they tend to quickly shut up. Though of course this only works for people you know: the voting public is allowed to be as dumb and contradictory as it wants to be.
- fma 10y ago
  Actually the polls show the citizens want the railway expanded, but the politicians are the absent minded bigots. They need to be voted out and find a job picking up trash. http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/poll-gwinnett-residents-in-favor-of-marta/nkwrQ/ http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/poll-gwin...
- superbaconman 10y ago
  > An easy way to shut up the idiots like these is to point out the extent to which miles traveled are subsidized for car drivers (invariably more than for transit, due to how horribly inefficient cars are). When they're forced to imagine a society without transport subsidies instead of one with only _their_ favored transport subsidies, they tend to quickly shut up. First, I don't think you're going to change anyone's mind by beginning with, "You're an idiot." Second, you're right, I can't imagine a society without transport subsidies; But, considering the state of my community's infrastructure, it's equally hard to imagine being able to subsidize even more transportation than it already does. Maybe if they were decommissioning roads in sync with new transit roll outs... Main questions I have for discussion (mostly related to rail transit): Will businesses that are not within walking distance of a mass transit endpoint a see a positive benefit? Will individuals that are not within walking distance of a mass transit endpoint see a positive benefit? Will their property values be adversely effected?
pcr0 10y ago
When I lived in China, the railway in my city cost about $2.5/trip, was 99.9% on-time, and the interiors were clean and air-conditioned. And they were making $2bn/year in profits. What a world of difference.
- fma 10y ago
  There are more people in China. Whether 10 people ride, or 10,000 people ride - once your infrastructure for rail is in place, your costs do not increase much. In Atlanta we have urban sprawls, where people live far from the city and drive in. The city empties out at night. We need rail that take people from the suburbs to the city to reduce the cars on the highway.
- seanmcdirmid 10y ago
  Many railways in China aren't profitable, heck only the Beijing Shanghai line is (out of the HSRs), and it costs just as much as flying (often more!). Commuter transit in China (50 Kuai and below) is almost always heavily subsidized.
collyw 10y ago
As a European that sounds crazy. I have no idea if our systems are profitable, but public transportation is for the greater good (makes it available to most, cuts down on pollution). Profits should be secondary. Then again, look how you guys run your healthcare.....

by fma 10y ago

wutbrodo 10y ago

> Our mass transportation system, MARTA, must be profitable. When it's not profitable, a certain segment of society always criticizes it. They don't think of the impacts to society of providing cheap, reliable and convenient transportation. An easy way to shut up the idiots like these is to point out the extent to which miles traveled are subsidized for car drivers (invariably more than for transit, due to how horribly inefficient cars are). When they're forced to imagine a society without transport subsidies instead of one with only _their_ favored transport subsidies, they tend to quickly shut up. Though of course this only works for people you know: the voting public is allowed to be as dumb and contradictory as it wants to be.

fma 10y ago
Actually the polls show the citizens want the railway expanded, but the politicians are the absent minded bigots. They need to be voted out and find a job picking up trash. http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/poll-gwinnett-residents-in-favor-of-marta/nkwrQ/ http://www.myajc.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/poll-gwin...
superbaconman 10y ago
> An easy way to shut up the idiots like these is to point out the extent to which miles traveled are subsidized for car drivers (invariably more than for transit, due to how horribly inefficient cars are). When they're forced to imagine a society without transport subsidies instead of one with only _their_ favored transport subsidies, they tend to quickly shut up. First, I don't think you're going to change anyone's mind by beginning with, "You're an idiot." Second, you're right, I can't imagine a society without transport subsidies; But, considering the state of my community's infrastructure, it's equally hard to imagine being able to subsidize even more transportation than it already does. Maybe if they were decommissioning roads in sync with new transit roll outs... Main questions I have for discussion (mostly related to rail transit): Will businesses that are not within walking distance of a mass transit endpoint a see a positive benefit? Will individuals that are not within walking distance of a mass transit endpoint see a positive benefit? Will their property values be adversely effected?

pcr0 10y ago

When I lived in China, the railway in my city cost about $2.5/trip, was 99.9% on-time, and the interiors were clean and air-conditioned. And they were making $2bn/year in profits. What a world of difference.

fma 10y ago
There are more people in China. Whether 10 people ride, or 10,000 people ride - once your infrastructure for rail is in place, your costs do not increase much. In Atlanta we have urban sprawls, where people live far from the city and drive in. The city empties out at night. We need rail that take people from the suburbs to the city to reduce the cars on the highway.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Many railways in China aren't profitable, heck only the Beijing Shanghai line is (out of the HSRs), and it costs just as much as flying (often more!). Commuter transit in China (50 Kuai and below) is almost always heavily subsidized.

collyw 10y ago

As a European that sounds crazy. I have no idea if our systems are profitable, but public transportation is for the greater good (makes it available to most, cuts down on pollution). Profits should be secondary. Then again, look how you guys run your healthcare.....