4 ms·

The problem you describe with public transport is basically a tautology; if the only people using public transport are the ones who cannot afford automobiles, t

The problem you describe with public transport is basically a tautology; if the only people using public transport are the ones who cannot afford automobiles, then yeah, maybe we should expect it to be a bit of a shitshow. Liberal has nothing to do with it, except that maybe liberals are able to understand this a priori.

indymike 5y ago
Public transit designed to get poor people to work usually operate in a state of failure (bad schedule, long trip times, bad environment). Public transit designed to be a better alternative to driving for everyone tends to be fantastic and useful - and ironically helps solve the getting people to work problem, too. Maybe focus on building a better alternative to cars?
- alamortsubite 5y ago
  I'm not sure what point you're making unless it's to underscore the tautology. The better alternative exists. It's only the political will to implement it that's lacking.
  - indymike 5y ago
    Most mass transit systems that are actually built are the kind focused on getting poor people to work. The results are that cars remain the best option, often even for the very people the system was designed for.
    - alamortsubite 5y ago
      What are some concrete examples of these systems that are specifically "designed to get poor people to work?" At first, I thought you were confusing the relationship between a transit system's design and implementation with its budget, but it sounds like I'm wrong.
      - indymike 5y ago
        Almost every city in "flyover" states outside Chicago are this way. Most often they are in the form of bus systems, and the routes, frequency of routes and location of stops make it very clear what the purpose of the system actually is. Most of the people who the system was designed for would rather take an uber and save 30-45 minutes of their life each way. It's really sad because great public transportation makes city living much better for everyone. When it's not great, it sucks for everyone and people that can't afford a car pay a huge tax in time spent riding and waiting for the bus. In fact, it makes owning a car more attractive.
        alamortsubite 5y ago
        > Most often they are in the form of bus systems, and the routes, frequency of routes and location of stops make it very clear what the purpose of the system actually is. Yes, of course. A naive person might think that city budgets were the issue, but "focused on getting poor people to work" is doubtless the mission statement for each of these concrete flyover state examples (outside Chicago). I agree and it's really sad, because if you have the political will and finances to send a crappy bus by a tilting signpost once an hour, surely you can whip up a tram network to rival Melbourne or Budapest's.
        indymike 5y ago
        > I agree and it's really sad, because if you have the political will and finances to send a crappy bus by a tilting signpost once an hour, surely you can whip up a tram network to rival Melbourne or Budapest's. This is very true. There are probably 20 cities in the US that are decent public transit away from going from ~1M population to 4-5M population, with all the opportunities (and problems) that go with growth. It's really sad, because the just continue to sprawl and sprawl, and quality of life goes down with congestion on the beltway.

indymike 5y ago

Public transit designed to get poor people to work usually operate in a state of failure (bad schedule, long trip times, bad environment). Public transit designed to be a better alternative to driving for everyone tends to be fantastic and useful - and ironically helps solve the getting people to work problem, too. Maybe focus on building a better alternative to cars?

alamortsubite 5y ago
I'm not sure what point you're making unless it's to underscore the tautology. The better alternative exists. It's only the political will to implement it that's lacking.
- indymike 5y ago
  Most mass transit systems that are actually built are the kind focused on getting poor people to work. The results are that cars remain the best option, often even for the very people the system was designed for.
  - alamortsubite 5y ago
    What are some concrete examples of these systems that are specifically "designed to get poor people to work?" At first, I thought you were confusing the relationship between a transit system's design and implementation with its budget, but it sounds like I'm wrong.
    - indymike 5y ago
      Almost every city in "flyover" states outside Chicago are this way. Most often they are in the form of bus systems, and the routes, frequency of routes and location of stops make it very clear what the purpose of the system actually is. Most of the people who the system was designed for would rather take an uber and save 30-45 minutes of their life each way. It's really sad because great public transportation makes city living much better for everyone. When it's not great, it sucks for everyone and people that can't afford a car pay a huge tax in time spent riding and waiting for the bus. In fact, it makes owning a car more attractive.
      - alamortsubite 5y ago
        > Most often they are in the form of bus systems, and the routes, frequency of routes and location of stops make it very clear what the purpose of the system actually is. Yes, of course. A naive person might think that city budgets were the issue, but "focused on getting poor people to work" is doubtless the mission statement for each of these concrete flyover state examples (outside Chicago). I agree and it's really sad, because if you have the political will and finances to send a crappy bus by a tilting signpost once an hour, surely you can whip up a tram network to rival Melbourne or Budapest's.
        indymike 5y ago
        > I agree and it's really sad, because if you have the political will and finances to send a crappy bus by a tilting signpost once an hour, surely you can whip up a tram network to rival Melbourne or Budapest's. This is very true. There are probably 20 cities in the US that are decent public transit away from going from ~1M population to 4-5M population, with all the opportunities (and problems) that go with growth. It's really sad, because the just continue to sprawl and sprawl, and quality of life goes down with congestion on the beltway.