4 ms·

My unpopular opinion is simple: public transit works well for standard humans witch means meat-based self-reproducible robots, any dictatorship want, because th

by kkfx 4y ago

My unpopular opinion is simple: public transit works well for standard humans witch means meat-based self-reproducible robots, any dictatorship want, because they do not almost have "individual" needs, they are just tools to be moved around in batch, public transport for them is like containers for shipping industry. Humans, Citizens instead tend to have effectively overlapping needs, but they essentially never overlap 100% so or public transports waste money in big under-used infra of make them moving nearly empty 24/7/365 to satisfy Citizens needs and desires. In dense cities cars are a nightmare so public transport is the only remaining solution behind nuking the city itself. But that's not a cheap AND effective solution in essentially all cases, as a result or we admit that the real "future society" target is the one pictured by the WEF years ago https://youtu.be/Hx3DhoLFO4s https://youtu.be/Hx3DhoLFO4s with the meat-based robots stuffed in modern chicken coops named "smart cities" where the dumb is the human (well depicted by the facial mimic of the main actor of the aforementioned video) and the Humans/Citizens (or oppressors, cleptocrats, depending on your POV) remain outside or no country in the world can stop wasting billion on crappy public transit project if not deciding to de-urbanize creating a new distributed society where we do have aggregation centers (like schools, unis, etc) and some districts for some kind of manufacturing activities we can't do otherwise, create a hybrid far more remote and ALSO far more social IRL society or...

sanxiyn 4y ago
Note that public transports moving nearly empty doesn't waste much money: it's a common misconception. Rail is mostly capex with little opex, and fare is set above opex anyway. Tracks are already built and trains are already bought. You need to pay back capex with fare, so every little ridership helps, and people's transportation choice is very sensitive to how often trains run (therefore how long they need to wait), so often the optimal choice is to run trains as much and as often as possible, even if they are nearly empty. Absolute ridership number is much more important than how full trains are.
- rippercushions 4y ago
  Incidentally, running frequent services is something the US is really bad at. I doubt there's another country where a line with one (1) train in the morning and one (1) in the evening on weekdays, and none at all on weekends, would dare to call itself a commuter service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounder_commuter_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounder_commuter_rail On the upside, "additional trips on the S Line are scheduled to be implemented by 2046." Whoo!
- kkfx 4y ago
  > Note that public transports moving nearly empty doesn't waste much money: it's a common misconception. Even if trains are VERY efficient they do not move at zero energy, nor they do not degrade while moving, nor their stations remains operational at no costs... Yes the capex is extreme BUT opex aren't better. As a serious debate, not intended for sterile polemics, so please try to wipe all prejudice before skimming: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what do you think? Personally I think: - with climate change cast urbanized areas need to change, perhaps not that drastically in the short term, but more and more frequently flooded areas need to be relocated and doing so in dense cities (let's say just NY with it's anti-floods protections skyrocketing costs) it's next to impossible. Given that infra needs to change, that's why we start pushing wireless satellite networks, small modular nuclear reactors, air short-range mobilities etc they are NOT economically sound, they are NOT safer, better than anything else, but once they exists they can operate in a changing world; - with the green new deal it's clear that all existing buildings need to be demolished and rebuilt or abandoned, again not tomorrow, but let's say in 25 years terms. Rebuild a single-family home it's reasonably quick, cheap and easy. Rebuild a skyscraper it's another story; - one thing it's clear: there is no real room for air-mobility in cities. AT MAXIMUM I can imaging intermodal stations where people arrive from outside and descend into a city public transport network witch leave a question open: those who live inside how can own something to go outside with their own means? Try just to see advertisements: for instance here I see many about heat-pumps for heating homes typically depicted in snowy natural place, or to be fresh in summer, again in natural places. Even cars ads are in nature, even for most city-cars. Again that's means: artist can't imaging something nice in a modern city environment. These are just few small breadcrumbs of examples why I'm convinced that in the future worlds cities will be sold as https://youtu.be/p-9X8Z2kJt8 https://youtu.be/p-9X8Z2kJt8 while really be like https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-expensive-new-migrant-camps-are-outraging-ngos https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-ex... to be used as factories/work camps for modern slaves where the development is done not for the well-being but just for moving workforce as needed, meat-based robots. As a result: public transport is the sole option in dense cities and it's not done because it's nice but just a way to keep humans there to employ them.
panick21_ 4y ago
Wow this is so incredibly wrong that its almost hurts. As a Swiss person I find it so fucking funny when people in the US who drive over their totally broken streets, constantly stuck in this huge traffic jams, build ridicules 20-lane highways and add a single line to a highway for like 5 billion $ want to talk about how public transit is expensive and unpractical. Partly this believes comes from the fact that the US is one of the few countries that has made highway building into directly government funded activity (not even a real gas tax) while transit project have no such luxury. Roads and highways are supposed to be free, and government just pays for it. But somehow public transit has to pay for itself. But here is the thing, true individualism and choice comes from great public transit. In Switerland, you can pay nothing (except some of your taxes) for the public transport and then just decide at any random morning decide, I'm going to go to the other side of the country, cross a lake, go up a mountain and then back home in the evening. You pike up your phones, walk out of your place of living and most likely within 5-10min walk you have some kind of public transit that will reliably bring you to the place you want to be and back. Check out the network here: https://www.jokteur.com/integrated_timetable/switzerland_stops.png https://www.jokteur.com/integrated_timetable/switzerland_sto... This is for 8 million people, that is less then in some US metro areas and it has to contend with mountains. The US mostly has much better geography. So it turns out what almost all individuals want in terms of transit is about 5-10min walk away from a public transit station. Building such a system is far more cost effective then building a car network that achieves the same thing. And it also frees up the existing car network not to be totally overflowing and in constant need of expansion. It also is about 100x better for the environment because almost all of that network runs on green electricity, its saves a huge amount of money because people don't breath tail pipe emissions, and it saves the population a huge amount of money because a car is 100% optional for a huge part of the population. Not to mention its incredibly for the independence of kids and young adults. Kids in the mountains have reliable way to get to school and its very often the case that young people take the train to school as early as 14. I did international travel without parents when I was 16. This allows that the schools don't have to pay for inconvenient separate bus systems like they have to do in the US. In cities this is even more important. Transit in cities is cheap and effective if you consider the per person cost, and it results in a comfortable quite likeable city if done correctly. You don't need 'smart cities', all you have to do is ban idiots in their dumb polluting load cars, and design the city for walking, cycling and transit. And if you do that, the property values and property taxes will pay for the transit with much left over. In the US the few places that exists that are like that fetch absurdly high prices and make the cities huge amounts of money. The idea that you advocate 'distributed society' is nonsense. Its incredibly harmful in terms of emissions, energy use, infrastructure cost. Its literally the opposite of how all human advancement has worked over the last 500 years. And again, this is not theory, this can be backed up with data. Suburban sprawl car dependency is literally the worst and most costly way to live and that's why all the US cities are broke. I strongly suggest you go check out 'urban3' they collect real data from real cities and the universal patterns is that dense city centers with transit are supporting the urban sprawl these cities have built around. And even worse that even with the economically profitable core, they will never be able to maintain all the sprawl they have build. And that's why in so much of the US they can't fix the roads. That's why so many cities in the US have horrible problems with their water systems. You are literally 100% wrong. And its not even up for debate. Data of real existing cities shows this in an incredibly clear way if you just look at it. Rather then come up with your own ideas like 'distributed society'. As if such a world didn't require huge road networks, huge water networks, huge amounts of cars, huge amount of truck driven logistic centers and so on and so on.

by kkfx 4y ago

sanxiyn 4y ago

Note that public transports moving nearly empty doesn't waste much money: it's a common misconception. Rail is mostly capex with little opex, and fare is set above opex anyway. Tracks are already built and trains are already bought. You need to pay back capex with fare, so every little ridership helps, and people's transportation choice is very sensitive to how often trains run (therefore how long they need to wait), so often the optimal choice is to run trains as much and as often as possible, even if they are nearly empty. Absolute ridership number is much more important than how full trains are.

rippercushions 4y ago
Incidentally, running frequent services is something the US is really bad at. I doubt there's another country where a line with one (1) train in the morning and one (1) in the evening on weekdays, and none at all on weekends, would dare to call itself a commuter service. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounder_commuter_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sounder_commuter_rail On the upside, "additional trips on the S Line are scheduled to be implemented by 2046." Whoo!
kkfx 4y ago
> Note that public transports moving nearly empty doesn't waste much money: it's a common misconception. Even if trains are VERY efficient they do not move at zero energy, nor they do not degrade while moving, nor their stations remains operational at no costs... Yes the capex is extreme BUT opex aren't better. As a serious debate, not intended for sterile polemics, so please try to wipe all prejudice before skimming: https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what do you think? Personally I think: - with climate change cast urbanized areas need to change, perhaps not that drastically in the short term, but more and more frequently flooded areas need to be relocated and doing so in dense cities (let's say just NY with it's anti-floods protections skyrocketing costs) it's next to impossible. Given that infra needs to change, that's why we start pushing wireless satellite networks, small modular nuclear reactors, air short-range mobilities etc they are NOT economically sound, they are NOT safer, better than anything else, but once they exists they can operate in a changing world; - with the green new deal it's clear that all existing buildings need to be demolished and rebuilt or abandoned, again not tomorrow, but let's say in 25 years terms. Rebuild a single-family home it's reasonably quick, cheap and easy. Rebuild a skyscraper it's another story; - one thing it's clear: there is no real room for air-mobility in cities. AT MAXIMUM I can imaging intermodal stations where people arrive from outside and descend into a city public transport network witch leave a question open: those who live inside how can own something to go outside with their own means? Try just to see advertisements: for instance here I see many about heat-pumps for heating homes typically depicted in snowy natural place, or to be fresh in summer, again in natural places. Even cars ads are in nature, even for most city-cars. Again that's means: artist can't imaging something nice in a modern city environment. These are just few small breadcrumbs of examples why I'm convinced that in the future worlds cities will be sold as https://youtu.be/p-9X8Z2kJt8 https://youtu.be/p-9X8Z2kJt8 while really be like https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-expensive-new-migrant-camps-are-outraging-ngos https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/19/why-greeces-ex... to be used as factories/work camps for modern slaves where the development is done not for the well-being but just for moving workforce as needed, meat-based robots. As a result: public transport is the sole option in dense cities and it's not done because it's nice but just a way to keep humans there to employ them.

panick21_ 4y ago

Wow this is so incredibly wrong that its almost hurts. As a Swiss person I find it so fucking funny when people in the US who drive over their totally broken streets, constantly stuck in this huge traffic jams, build ridicules 20-lane highways and add a single line to a highway for like 5 billion $ want to talk about how public transit is expensive and unpractical. Partly this believes comes from the fact that the US is one of the few countries that has made highway building into directly government funded activity (not even a real gas tax) while transit project have no such luxury. Roads and highways are supposed to be free, and government just pays for it. But somehow public transit has to pay for itself. But here is the thing, true individualism and choice comes from great public transit. In Switerland, you can pay nothing (except some of your taxes) for the public transport and then just decide at any random morning decide, I'm going to go to the other side of the country, cross a lake, go up a mountain and then back home in the evening. You pike up your phones, walk out of your place of living and most likely within 5-10min walk you have some kind of public transit that will reliably bring you to the place you want to be and back. Check out the network here: https://www.jokteur.com/integrated_timetable/switzerland_stops.png https://www.jokteur.com/integrated_timetable/switzerland_sto... This is for 8 million people, that is less then in some US metro areas and it has to contend with mountains. The US mostly has much better geography. So it turns out what almost all individuals want in terms of transit is about 5-10min walk away from a public transit station. Building such a system is far more cost effective then building a car network that achieves the same thing. And it also frees up the existing car network not to be totally overflowing and in constant need of expansion. It also is about 100x better for the environment because almost all of that network runs on green electricity, its saves a huge amount of money because people don't breath tail pipe emissions, and it saves the population a huge amount of money because a car is 100% optional for a huge part of the population. Not to mention its incredibly for the independence of kids and young adults. Kids in the mountains have reliable way to get to school and its very often the case that young people take the train to school as early as 14. I did international travel without parents when I was 16. This allows that the schools don't have to pay for inconvenient separate bus systems like they have to do in the US. In cities this is even more important. Transit in cities is cheap and effective if you consider the per person cost, and it results in a comfortable quite likeable city if done correctly. You don't need 'smart cities', all you have to do is ban idiots in their dumb polluting load cars, and design the city for walking, cycling and transit. And if you do that, the property values and property taxes will pay for the transit with much left over. In the US the few places that exists that are like that fetch absurdly high prices and make the cities huge amounts of money. The idea that you advocate 'distributed society' is nonsense. Its incredibly harmful in terms of emissions, energy use, infrastructure cost. Its literally the opposite of how all human advancement has worked over the last 500 years. And again, this is not theory, this can be backed up with data. Suburban sprawl car dependency is literally the worst and most costly way to live and that's why all the US cities are broke. I strongly suggest you go check out 'urban3' they collect real data from real cities and the universal patterns is that dense city centers with transit are supporting the urban sprawl these cities have built around. And even worse that even with the economically profitable core, they will never be able to maintain all the sprawl they have build. And that's why in so much of the US they can't fix the roads. That's why so many cities in the US have horrible problems with their water systems. You are literally 100% wrong. And its not even up for debate. Data of real existing cities shows this in an incredibly clear way if you just look at it. Rather then come up with your own ideas like 'distributed society'. As if such a world didn't require huge road networks, huge water networks, huge amounts of cars, huge amount of truck driven logistic centers and so on and so on.