4 ms·

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'

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.

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.