4 ms·

Yeah for me it was like 500 meter walk to the bus stop :) And bus stops were every 2 km or so :) I'm wondering why there are no such buses where you live? It i

by ajuc 3y ago

Yeah for me it was like 500 meter walk to the bus stop :) And bus stops were every 2 km or so :) I'm wondering why there are no such buses where you live? It it a matter of population density, different road network architecture (here most villages are build along the roads so you can put bus stops every 1-2 km and you'll get enoguh passangers to get by), or just a chicken-and-egg problem of customers not being used to it so it's not profitable if you create it?

ghaff 3y ago
There is a small regional transit system that covers the grocery store, Walmart, train station, and I'm not sure what else. My sense from seeing it at the grocery store is that it's mostly for seniors and others who can't drive. It covers the nearby ~40K population pair of cities. The surrounding towns--one of which I live in--are pretty rural, or at least exurban, with a very limited commercial tax base and generally don't even have sidewalks outside of the town centers. We'd have neither the density/demand or the budget to have a public transit system.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Comparing your experience of the service for ~40k people vs an urban setting intended to serve ~400k people or more seems at least irrelevant and at most intentionally misleading.
  - thereisnospork 3y ago
    That sounds pretty accurate for most of the country which isn't in an ultra high COL area.[0] One doesn't "just" take public transit to a city center from most of America. [0] Which can be fairly accurately described as regions within an acceptable commute of the aforementioned centers. (Or non city job centers a la silicon valley).
hollerith 3y ago
>I'm wondering why there are no such buses where you live? Because the residents of his city overwhemlingly prefer cars.
- eropple 3y ago
  Do they? Or is it the only game in town because of decisions made sixty years ago and housing pressures and cost structures mean that if you want to live at an affordable level in that area a car is functionally required? (Hint: in almost all of America, it's this one.)
  - lotsoweiners 3y ago
    I live where I live specifically because I dont want density or a bunch of public transport options. Financially I could afford to move 25 miles and be in areas that are more walkable with public transportation but the downsides (crime, homeless, traffic, crowds, smaller living spaces, privacy concerns) outweigh the benefits for me and my family.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Those decision made 60 years ago was buying cars and moving out of the dense cities into car-oriented housing. Then they continued to move more and more into car oriented housing and voting for more car oriented housing. It's not like suburbs just appeared one day against everyone's wishes.
    - ajuc 3y ago
      In Netherlands they did the exact same thing and then reverted to walkable cities. It's not the only choice and it has lots of bad consequences. And I'd argue most citizens were never asked about it, it was decided for them by zoning laws and planning commitees in both countries.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        I'm not suggesting it's the only choice, or it being a good choice, or anything like that. I'm just pushing back against the narrative that people didn't freely choose this. Popularly elected leaders chose the city planning. Local elections and people leaving the cities by choice created the suburbs. If most the people in the cities wanted the change it would happen. And hey look, you're doing it too. "Zoning laws" just magically happened with zero input and somehow radically changed the world without anyone noticing. How did the zoning laws get there? Popularly elected people chosen by the people who live there who made it happen year over year over year. If people didn't like the zoning, they'd vote to change it. That's how it happened in the Netherlands, people elected people who wanted the change.

by ajuc 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago

There is a small regional transit system that covers the grocery store, Walmart, train station, and I'm not sure what else. My sense from seeing it at the grocery store is that it's mostly for seniors and others who can't drive. It covers the nearby ~40K population pair of cities. The surrounding towns--one of which I live in--are pretty rural, or at least exurban, with a very limited commercial tax base and generally don't even have sidewalks outside of the town centers. We'd have neither the density/demand or the budget to have a public transit system.

uoaei 3y ago
Comparing your experience of the service for ~40k people vs an urban setting intended to serve ~400k people or more seems at least irrelevant and at most intentionally misleading.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  That sounds pretty accurate for most of the country which isn't in an ultra high COL area.[0] One doesn't "just" take public transit to a city center from most of America. [0] Which can be fairly accurately described as regions within an acceptable commute of the aforementioned centers. (Or non city job centers a la silicon valley).

hollerith 3y ago

>I'm wondering why there are no such buses where you live? Because the residents of his city overwhemlingly prefer cars.

eropple 3y ago
Do they? Or is it the only game in town because of decisions made sixty years ago and housing pressures and cost structures mean that if you want to live at an affordable level in that area a car is functionally required? (Hint: in almost all of America, it's this one.)
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  I live where I live specifically because I dont want density or a bunch of public transport options. Financially I could afford to move 25 miles and be in areas that are more walkable with public transportation but the downsides (crime, homeless, traffic, crowds, smaller living spaces, privacy concerns) outweigh the benefits for me and my family.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- vel0city 3y ago
  Those decision made 60 years ago was buying cars and moving out of the dense cities into car-oriented housing. Then they continued to move more and more into car oriented housing and voting for more car oriented housing. It's not like suburbs just appeared one day against everyone's wishes.
  - ajuc 3y ago
    In Netherlands they did the exact same thing and then reverted to walkable cities. It's not the only choice and it has lots of bad consequences. And I'd argue most citizens were never asked about it, it was decided for them by zoning laws and planning commitees in both countries.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      I'm not suggesting it's the only choice, or it being a good choice, or anything like that. I'm just pushing back against the narrative that people didn't freely choose this. Popularly elected leaders chose the city planning. Local elections and people leaving the cities by choice created the suburbs. If most the people in the cities wanted the change it would happen. And hey look, you're doing it too. "Zoning laws" just magically happened with zero input and somehow radically changed the world without anyone noticing. How did the zoning laws get there? Popularly elected people chosen by the people who live there who made it happen year over year over year. If people didn't like the zoning, they'd vote to change it. That's how it happened in the Netherlands, people elected people who wanted the change.