4 ms·

Or, crazy idea, we just don't require mass transit to produce a profit and continue to reshape our cities so that mass transit, cycling, and walking become more

Or, crazy idea, we just don't require mass transit to produce a profit and continue to reshape our cities so that mass transit, cycling, and walking become more attractive.

burntoutfire 6y ago
> just don't require mass transit to produce a profit Was it ever profitable in USA? Here in Poland, the income from tickets usually only cover below 50% of the costs, while the rest comes from subsidies.
- TingPing 6y ago
  No. However its an excuse used here to not invest in it sometimes.
HonestOp001 6y ago
How do you propose to evaluate success of a transit route? How do we evaluate trade off options. In California, they are wasting billions on high speed rail, Hawaii cannot finish its elevated circulator because of incompetence. These are pushed as benefits for all, yet, if we took that money and bought the needy a Prius instead, with a ten year life cycle, are the people better off? When we talk of just making transit free, there is no talk of what’s the alternative to the environment if we just enable people to drive by getting them a car. Rail is a waste, China even admits to it off the books. Look at how much expressway / freeway they have build and how they are slowing / stopping high speed rail projects. Transit is great when it is constantly evaluated for getting people from point to point. However, because of political issues (I want a large bus to make it appear my neighborhood is respected, when there are only two riders per day on it or I want a train stop near my house not near where all the users are at) we end up with less than optimal effects.
- adrianN 6y ago
  The same way you evaluate the success of a road.
- 542354234235 6y ago
  > In California, they are wasting billions on high speed rail, Hawaii cannot finish its elevated circulator because of incompetence. These are pushed as benefits for all, yet, if we took that money and bought the needy a Prius instead, with a ten year life cycle, are the people better off? Hawaii and California already have massive traffic problems because cars are an insanely inefficient mode of transportation. Commuters in LA spend almost 13 full work days sitting in traffic per year [1]. 10 buses that are only a third full replaces 260 single commuter cars. A light rail running at 50% capacity carries more people per hour that 4 full lanes of highway [2]. Even if we build more and more roads, that just causes more traffic, not less [3]. Cars are a massive individual monetary sink compared to a transit pass and bike. However, when you decide to build another massive highway to “relieve” traffic instead of building safe biking infrastructure, dedicated lanes for busses, light rails that move throughout the city, trains that move people into and out of the city, or city centers that are friendly to foot traffic, then you aren’t really leaving people with a good option except a car. [1] https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-la-worst-traffic-20180206-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-la-worst-traffic-2... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail [3] https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
  - HonestOp001 5y ago
    Light rail is for the rich. Done. Every time the rich want light rail it needs a transit oriented development, pushes out the poor, and saddles the new rich with a development tax. Your statistics work in high density areas. Yes, I can load a bus full of people if they want to go to the same area. That requires a suburb to a centralized factory. Now think of all the startups, do they all work in a centralized location, nope, because any centralized location is running a huge facility and is a huge company. Think Facebook. How does Joe O‘Reilly get from her studio apartment on the outskirts of town to their job as a janitor for said small start up? She needs to ride a bus and arrive their on the buses schedule. Not hers. Bus headway’s in non large urban areas are thirty minutes to an hour. Our heroine needs to wait up to an hour of her time for a bus. She is still in the traffic, but traffic plus an hour. And then she needs to drive an half hour in the bus to get to her actual destination. Car = 30 minute drive Bus = 30 minute wait for first bus + 30 minute drive to first stop + 30 minute headway waits + 30 minutes to destination = 120 minutes Joe wastes 2.5 hours per day in the bus system. 2.5 hours x 262 working days = 27.29 days wasted. That’s 13 more than the car in LA, ask her which one she wants to pick. I am going to give her the car that allows her to pursue her opportunities in the city. China is building roads. More and more roads. They get it. Traffic wanes once you build enough roads. All the traffic is pent up demand.
woofie11 6y ago
If we don't require it to produce a profit, profits from it shouldn't go to executives or shareholders. I'm okay with a free PUBLIC transit system. I'm okay with private transit. I'm not okay with the government-subsidized public/private monstrosities we have in many places. Private for-profit corporations do well with competition, not with government-funded monopolies. I'd be okay with private corporations managing individual train routes, but not with them managing train systems.

Or, crazy idea, we just don't require mass transit to produce a profit and continue to reshape our cities so that mass transit, cycling, and walking become more attractive.

burntoutfire 6y ago

> just don't require mass transit to produce a profit Was it ever profitable in USA? Here in Poland, the income from tickets usually only cover below 50% of the costs, while the rest comes from subsidies.

TingPing 6y ago
No. However its an excuse used here to not invest in it sometimes.

HonestOp001 6y ago

How do you propose to evaluate success of a transit route? How do we evaluate trade off options. In California, they are wasting billions on high speed rail, Hawaii cannot finish its elevated circulator because of incompetence. These are pushed as benefits for all, yet, if we took that money and bought the needy a Prius instead, with a ten year life cycle, are the people better off? When we talk of just making transit free, there is no talk of what’s the alternative to the environment if we just enable people to drive by getting them a car. Rail is a waste, China even admits to it off the books. Look at how much expressway / freeway they have build and how they are slowing / stopping high speed rail projects. Transit is great when it is constantly evaluated for getting people from point to point. However, because of political issues (I want a large bus to make it appear my neighborhood is respected, when there are only two riders per day on it or I want a train stop near my house not near where all the users are at) we end up with less than optimal effects.

adrianN 6y ago
The same way you evaluate the success of a road.
542354234235 6y ago
> In California, they are wasting billions on high speed rail, Hawaii cannot finish its elevated circulator because of incompetence. These are pushed as benefits for all, yet, if we took that money and bought the needy a Prius instead, with a ten year life cycle, are the people better off? Hawaii and California already have massive traffic problems because cars are an insanely inefficient mode of transportation. Commuters in LA spend almost 13 full work days sitting in traffic per year [1]. 10 buses that are only a third full replaces 260 single commuter cars. A light rail running at 50% capacity carries more people per hour that 4 full lanes of highway [2]. Even if we build more and more roads, that just causes more traffic, not less [3]. Cars are a massive individual monetary sink compared to a transit pass and bike. However, when you decide to build another massive highway to “relieve” traffic instead of building safe biking infrastructure, dedicated lanes for busses, light rails that move throughout the city, trains that move people into and out of the city, or city centers that are friendly to foot traffic, then you aren’t really leaving people with a good option except a car. [1] https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-la-worst-traffic-20180206-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-la-worst-traffic-2... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail [3] https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/ https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/
- HonestOp001 5y ago
  Light rail is for the rich. Done. Every time the rich want light rail it needs a transit oriented development, pushes out the poor, and saddles the new rich with a development tax. Your statistics work in high density areas. Yes, I can load a bus full of people if they want to go to the same area. That requires a suburb to a centralized factory. Now think of all the startups, do they all work in a centralized location, nope, because any centralized location is running a huge facility and is a huge company. Think Facebook. How does Joe O‘Reilly get from her studio apartment on the outskirts of town to their job as a janitor for said small start up? She needs to ride a bus and arrive their on the buses schedule. Not hers. Bus headway’s in non large urban areas are thirty minutes to an hour. Our heroine needs to wait up to an hour of her time for a bus. She is still in the traffic, but traffic plus an hour. And then she needs to drive an half hour in the bus to get to her actual destination. Car = 30 minute drive Bus = 30 minute wait for first bus + 30 minute drive to first stop + 30 minute headway waits + 30 minutes to destination = 120 minutes Joe wastes 2.5 hours per day in the bus system. 2.5 hours x 262 working days = 27.29 days wasted. That’s 13 more than the car in LA, ask her which one she wants to pick. I am going to give her the car that allows her to pursue her opportunities in the city. China is building roads. More and more roads. They get it. Traffic wanes once you build enough roads. All the traffic is pent up demand.

woofie11 6y ago

If we don't require it to produce a profit, profits from it shouldn't go to executives or shareholders. I'm okay with a free PUBLIC transit system. I'm okay with private transit. I'm not okay with the government-subsidized public/private monstrosities we have in many places. Private for-profit corporations do well with competition, not with government-funded monopolies. I'd be okay with private corporations managing individual train routes, but not with them managing train systems.