3 ms·

There are many places where bus comes every half an hour, and there are on average 1-2 passengers on it. I think in those towns it would be cheaper for local co

There are many places where bus comes every half an hour, and there are on average 1-2 passengers on it. I think in those towns it would be cheaper for local council to just pay for Uber service for everyone who needs public transportation. No need to buy expensive buses, maintain bus stops, stations and depots, pay drivers and administrators salaries and pensions etc.

yakireev 4y ago
> There are many places where bus comes every half an hour, and there are on average 1-2 passengers on it Well, no surprise there are so few passengers: the bus comes every half an hour! Make it once every two hours, and there will be no passengers at all. "Every half an hour" is an option for the desperate. Also, that bus is probably stuck with cars when there's heavy traffic, while being slower than cars when there isn't. And it does not go exactly where you want to be. Would _you_ use such a bus service if you weren't forced to due to circumstances? The answer for shitty public transport offering should not be eliminating public transport offering.
- eru 4y ago
  Well, it depends. Public transport only really makes sense when you have enough density. If you have the typical North American rules that make density illegal, even the best public transport won't safe you. In fact, it might be throwing good money after bad money.
eru 4y ago
The local council can just give poor people money, then they can pay Uber (or buy bread or beer, if they need it more).
- yakireev 4y ago
  "public transport riders" != "poor people", unless your bus service is specifically designed to be miserable.
  - eru 4y ago
    Yes? I never said otherwise. I just don't think non-poor people need subsidised Uber-rides nor any other handouts from the local council. For clarity: the context was for local councils to give money to Uber instead of running a bus service. Which is plausible idea. I just don't think you need to be so specific: give people money, so they can buy goods and services they deem most beneficial (including Uber rides). Now going one step further: only give the money to poor people. Welfare for rich people is a bit silly.
    - yakireev 4y ago
      I'm all for giving more money to poor people, but how is that related to public transport? "Let's sell for scrap metal what's left of our public transit system and give the proceedings to the poor" would be a mad proposition. I'm a regular user of public transport. I don't own a car, don't have a drivers license and call taxi/uber maybe once or twice per year. I am lucky enough to live in a place where that's not just possible, but easy, easier than driving a car. And I'm not poor. I can afford a car, just don't want to have one. Public transport is not a handout to the poor, it is a service which makes life better for everyone. If yours is so bad only poor people would use it - maybe it's time to fix it.
      - eru 4y ago
        For what it's worth, I never owned a car in my life. (I currently live in Singapore, which has excellent public transport.) My suggestion was conditional: if a city has already decided that Uber is better than public transport, then they should still not give Uber money. But instead, give the money to poor people. However: public transport only really makes sense when you have enough density. If you have the typical North American rules that make density illegal, even the best public transport won't safe you. In fact, it might be throwing good money after bad money. I don't say that density needs to become before public transport. Just the opposite: you need to put transportation in place before people come. But you also need to make density legal before you think about public transport.
    - autoexec 4y ago

yakireev 4y ago

> There are many places where bus comes every half an hour, and there are on average 1-2 passengers on it Well, no surprise there are so few passengers: the bus comes every half an hour! Make it once every two hours, and there will be no passengers at all. "Every half an hour" is an option for the desperate. Also, that bus is probably stuck with cars when there's heavy traffic, while being slower than cars when there isn't. And it does not go exactly where you want to be. Would _you_ use such a bus service if you weren't forced to due to circumstances? The answer for shitty public transport offering should not be eliminating public transport offering.

eru 4y ago
Well, it depends. Public transport only really makes sense when you have enough density. If you have the typical North American rules that make density illegal, even the best public transport won't safe you. In fact, it might be throwing good money after bad money.

eru 4y ago

The local council can just give poor people money, then they can pay Uber (or buy bread or beer, if they need it more).

yakireev 4y ago
"public transport riders" != "poor people", unless your bus service is specifically designed to be miserable.
- eru 4y ago
  Yes? I never said otherwise. I just don't think non-poor people need subsidised Uber-rides nor any other handouts from the local council. For clarity: the context was for local councils to give money to Uber instead of running a bus service. Which is plausible idea. I just don't think you need to be so specific: give people money, so they can buy goods and services they deem most beneficial (including Uber rides). Now going one step further: only give the money to poor people. Welfare for rich people is a bit silly.
  - yakireev 4y ago
    I'm all for giving more money to poor people, but how is that related to public transport? "Let's sell for scrap metal what's left of our public transit system and give the proceedings to the poor" would be a mad proposition. I'm a regular user of public transport. I don't own a car, don't have a drivers license and call taxi/uber maybe once or twice per year. I am lucky enough to live in a place where that's not just possible, but easy, easier than driving a car. And I'm not poor. I can afford a car, just don't want to have one. Public transport is not a handout to the poor, it is a service which makes life better for everyone. If yours is so bad only poor people would use it - maybe it's time to fix it.
    - eru 4y ago
      For what it's worth, I never owned a car in my life. (I currently live in Singapore, which has excellent public transport.) My suggestion was conditional: if a city has already decided that Uber is better than public transport, then they should still not give Uber money. But instead, give the money to poor people. However: public transport only really makes sense when you have enough density. If you have the typical North American rules that make density illegal, even the best public transport won't safe you. In fact, it might be throwing good money after bad money. I don't say that density needs to become before public transport. Just the opposite: you need to put transportation in place before people come. But you also need to make density legal before you think about public transport.
  - autoexec 4y ago