3 ms·

Maybe fix the metro first? Kiev in Ukraine has better metro than NYC.

by throebd 7y ago

wetpaws 7y ago
This is a false dichotomy. One does not exclude another.
- close04 7y ago
  No but the order is important. Making public transport better first would make the transition away from car traffic somewhat smoother. Many cities already successfully pulled this off and this method received far more popular support than just cutting off car traffic and expecting the people to "deal with it" without having good options.
  - techsupporter 7y ago
    Except that the order usually goes like this: 1. You can't take away personal car access; the public transportation sucks! Make it better, first. 2. You can't improve public transportation; everybody drives so it's not a good cost investment. Get more people to ride transit, first. 3. Goto 1
    - close04 7y ago
      Most European cities that shifted away from car traffic did exactly that. First they improved public transport and encouraged any other alternatives like bicycles. They invested in that infrastructure until it was ready to take over. Then they started to slowly "push" people away from cars by turning some streets or city centers into pedestrian zones. You collect the returns after you invest. Otherwise almost any initiative would get bogged down into your 3 point loop. When companies build a new HQ they don't tear down the old one first. The "loop" is a fake conundrum.
      - techsupporter 7y ago
        It's not a fake conundrum in political systems, especially when--as so often happens--road projects sail through the legislature with nary a peep but public transit spending has to be voted on (often more than once) by the people in the region or, sometimes, statewide. European countries often don't have these barriers or at least have a political and government legacy where the people see the investments as worth it. That's not a situation we often enjoy in the States, some reasons cultural and some self-inflicted. For example, in western Washington, we've repeatedly voted to tax ourselves for transit. Our regional leaders had to push, prod, and beg our state elected leaders to pass laws permitting us to have those votes. (Meanwhile, road projects sail through.) Yet, more often than not, we've voted yes. But in November, through our tediously broken initiative system, the entire state will get to vote on whether to repeal our locally-approved taxing authority because a political shyster likes running bumper-sticker-politics campaigns on $30 car tabs because "nobody uses transit." You're right that the "loop" need not happen and often doesn't in most circumstances but people are very persnickety about transportation and their deity-granted right to park their vehicle on a free street directly in front of their place of residence.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        close04 7y ago
        Some political systems make even the best solutions "a loop".
- quest88 7y ago
  It's still a valid point: If there were a better alternative to cars for the people who currently drive cars then wouldn't they use it? So provide a better solution instead of using force.
  - bootlooped 7y ago
    Many people just prefer their own vehicle and will drive no matter how good public transit is. Edit: look at Seoul or Tokyo, with some of the best subway systems in the world, maybe the best. People still drive cars.
- whowhatwhy 7y ago
  not really
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.
elgenie 7y ago
One of the express purposes of this change is (drumroll) to make bus service better as the L train is being repaired.
desert_boi 7y ago
I was surprised Budapest had a nicer Metro than Boston/NYC. The Orange Line in Boston is probably older than any of the lines in Budapest.
- lhopki01 7y ago
  The Budapest metro is the second oldest metro in the entire world. Only preceeded by the London metro. Boston is the 6th oldest beaten by Chicago in the US.
  - desert_boi 7y ago
    I meant the age of the trains themselves. Boston's Orange Line is rolling stock from the '79-'81. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_(MBTA)#Rolling_stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_(MBTA)#Rolling_sto.... Boston's T (1897) is just a year younger than Budapest's Metro.

Maybe fix the metro first? Kiev in Ukraine has better metro than NYC.

wetpaws 7y ago

This is a false dichotomy. One does not exclude another.

close04 7y ago
No but the order is important. Making public transport better first would make the transition away from car traffic somewhat smoother. Many cities already successfully pulled this off and this method received far more popular support than just cutting off car traffic and expecting the people to "deal with it" without having good options.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  Except that the order usually goes like this: 1. You can't take away personal car access; the public transportation sucks! Make it better, first. 2. You can't improve public transportation; everybody drives so it's not a good cost investment. Get more people to ride transit, first. 3. Goto 1
  - close04 7y ago
    Most European cities that shifted away from car traffic did exactly that. First they improved public transport and encouraged any other alternatives like bicycles. They invested in that infrastructure until it was ready to take over. Then they started to slowly "push" people away from cars by turning some streets or city centers into pedestrian zones. You collect the returns after you invest. Otherwise almost any initiative would get bogged down into your 3 point loop. When companies build a new HQ they don't tear down the old one first. The "loop" is a fake conundrum.
    - techsupporter 7y ago
      It's not a fake conundrum in political systems, especially when--as so often happens--road projects sail through the legislature with nary a peep but public transit spending has to be voted on (often more than once) by the people in the region or, sometimes, statewide. European countries often don't have these barriers or at least have a political and government legacy where the people see the investments as worth it. That's not a situation we often enjoy in the States, some reasons cultural and some self-inflicted. For example, in western Washington, we've repeatedly voted to tax ourselves for transit. Our regional leaders had to push, prod, and beg our state elected leaders to pass laws permitting us to have those votes. (Meanwhile, road projects sail through.) Yet, more often than not, we've voted yes. But in November, through our tediously broken initiative system, the entire state will get to vote on whether to repeal our locally-approved taxing authority because a political shyster likes running bumper-sticker-politics campaigns on $30 car tabs because "nobody uses transit." You're right that the "loop" need not happen and often doesn't in most circumstances but people are very persnickety about transportation and their deity-granted right to park their vehicle on a free street directly in front of their place of residence.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - close04 7y ago
        Some political systems make even the best solutions "a loop".
quest88 7y ago
It's still a valid point: If there were a better alternative to cars for the people who currently drive cars then wouldn't they use it? So provide a better solution instead of using force.
- bootlooped 7y ago
  Many people just prefer their own vehicle and will drive no matter how good public transit is. Edit: look at Seoul or Tokyo, with some of the best subway systems in the world, maybe the best. People still drive cars.
whowhatwhy 7y ago
not really
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

elgenie 7y ago

One of the express purposes of this change is (drumroll) to make bus service better as the L train is being repaired.

desert_boi 7y ago

I was surprised Budapest had a nicer Metro than Boston/NYC. The Orange Line in Boston is probably older than any of the lines in Budapest.

lhopki01 7y ago
The Budapest metro is the second oldest metro in the entire world. Only preceeded by the London metro. Boston is the 6th oldest beaten by Chicago in the US.
- desert_boi 7y ago
  I meant the age of the trains themselves. Boston's Orange Line is rolling stock from the '79-'81. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_(MBTA)#Rolling_stock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Line_(MBTA)#Rolling_sto.... Boston's T (1897) is just a year younger than Budapest's Metro.