3 ms·

I disagree that mass transit is expensive. If done well, it's the most economic mode of moving a massive amount of people over relatively large distances. I al

I disagree that mass transit is expensive. If done well, it's the most economic mode of moving a massive amount of people over relatively large distances. I also don't get what's wrong with walking. For me, personally, it's the best mode of transportation in the 15 - 30 minute range (granted, on a nice day in a city that's made for walking). To each his own, I guess.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> I disagree that mass transit is expensive Capital intensive would have been more accurate. And in terms of maintenance, too, it’s more expensive than a road. Its economics only balance above a certain density threshold.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  Sure, it's capital intensive. But that goes for all necessary infrastructure in dense, urban areas. Shit needs to be channeled away and cleaned, electricity and networks need to be provided, water has to be served, etc. Public transport is not different. And calculated on the amount of people it serves I'd argue that it's cheaper than cars. Especially if the externalities are factored in. I'm not saying that scooters can't add something to the mix if done right. But the situation - as is - is not as bad as you make it out. Especially for cities that do it right.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    Do you have an example of mass transit 'done right' in a city in the US? Seems to me that scooters (or bikeshares etc) are highly complementary to mass transit, since you're never going to get rail lines everywhere.
    - DrScump 8y ago
      Caltrain from SF-SV works well, but it's far from cheap anymore. Round trip from Sunnyvale (Lawrence) to SF, for example, is over $20 now.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  Roads are way more expensive to maintain than a track, which is why rail is cheaper than road shipping costs. Cities that aren’t big at all like Bern really show off the advantage of mass transit infrastructure.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> I disagree that mass transit is expensive Capital intensive would have been more accurate. And in terms of maintenance, too, it’s more expensive than a road. Its economics only balance above a certain density threshold.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
Sure, it's capital intensive. But that goes for all necessary infrastructure in dense, urban areas. Shit needs to be channeled away and cleaned, electricity and networks need to be provided, water has to be served, etc. Public transport is not different. And calculated on the amount of people it serves I'd argue that it's cheaper than cars. Especially if the externalities are factored in. I'm not saying that scooters can't add something to the mix if done right. But the situation - as is - is not as bad as you make it out. Especially for cities that do it right.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  Do you have an example of mass transit 'done right' in a city in the US? Seems to me that scooters (or bikeshares etc) are highly complementary to mass transit, since you're never going to get rail lines everywhere.
  - DrScump 8y ago
    Caltrain from SF-SV works well, but it's far from cheap anymore. Round trip from Sunnyvale (Lawrence) to SF, for example, is over $20 now.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Roads are way more expensive to maintain than a track, which is why rail is cheaper than road shipping costs. Cities that aren’t big at all like Bern really show off the advantage of mass transit infrastructure.