3 ms·

must be nice to live in a country that's not even have half the size of Washington state and has a smaller population than one county (King, to be specific, has

must be nice to live in a country that's not even have half the size of Washington state and has a smaller population than one county (King, to be specific, has more than two million if I remember) in it.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
I truly do not see why that matters. For the most part, such things are just an excuse to avoid installing a public robust transportation system. Yes, the amount of people you have, size of area, and terrain makes different sorts of stresses on your system - which is why they need to be somewhat customized to an area. Businesses do this all the time, and I don't see how it is too big of a hurdle to overcome.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Past a certain point the cost of new marginal capacity is hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars, or even tens of billions of dollars in new metro, bus rapid transit, etc. That’s money that could be invested in welfare, housing, healthcare, etc. And it has to come from somewhere. And this is before you consider that it takes a while to build such projects. Guangzhou had to pull the plug on free transit during the 2010 Asian Games because queue times for the metro increased by half an hour just to get into the station, let alone board a train. What’s the use of a free train if you can’t board it?
adrianN 8y ago
What has that to do with the ability to make public transit free? Fewer people means less taxes too.
m0zg 8y ago
FWIW, as a resident of King County, I would welcome "free" public transportation. The buses on all but the busiest roads are nearly empty most of the time, so as a taxpayer I'm already paying for their cost. If nothing else it might make sense to make rides free on the routes where there are hardly any riders today, since they aren't paying for themselves anyway.

3 ms·

must be nice to live in a country that's not even have half the size of Washington state and has a smaller population than one county (King, to be specific, has

by ihatemgs56 8y ago

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
I truly do not see why that matters. For the most part, such things are just an excuse to avoid installing a public robust transportation system. Yes, the amount of people you have, size of area, and terrain makes different sorts of stresses on your system - which is why they need to be somewhat customized to an area. Businesses do this all the time, and I don't see how it is too big of a hurdle to overcome.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Past a certain point the cost of new marginal capacity is hundreds of millions, or billions of dollars, or even tens of billions of dollars in new metro, bus rapid transit, etc. That’s money that could be invested in welfare, housing, healthcare, etc. And it has to come from somewhere. And this is before you consider that it takes a while to build such projects. Guangzhou had to pull the plug on free transit during the 2010 Asian Games because queue times for the metro increased by half an hour just to get into the station, let alone board a train. What’s the use of a free train if you can’t board it?
adrianN 8y ago
What has that to do with the ability to make public transit free? Fewer people means less taxes too.
m0zg 8y ago
FWIW, as a resident of King County, I would welcome "free" public transportation. The buses on all but the busiest roads are nearly empty most of the time, so as a taxpayer I'm already paying for their cost. If nothing else it might make sense to make rides free on the routes where there are hardly any riders today, since they aren't paying for themselves anyway.