3 ms·

> isn't exactly a fair price comparison because users of urban roads tend to need to supply their own vehicles, at considerable cost to themselves Which isn't

> isn't exactly a fair price comparison because users of urban roads tend to need to supply their own vehicles, at considerable cost to themselves Which isn't a fair comparison at all because you are completely ignoring the positive values of vehicles. I live in Christchurch, with very cheap buses. One destination I need takes me >2 hours by bus that is <15 minutes by car (bus is star network and long waits). Another destination I need has a bus one way once a day only on business days. And I often am carrying more than a backpack can take. Making lopsided comparisons is just inane.

bluGill 3y ago
A bad network is something to fix not use as an excuse
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Until/unless it's fixed, the only reasonable daily life response is to "do what you need to do and is under your direct influence".
  - bluGill 3y ago
    That defeatist attitude is why we are where we are. Yes you do what you need to to day, but part of that is getting the problem fixed.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      What do you want GP to do? Drive some buses to improve service? Star topologies coupled with infrequent service is often what makes public transit suck. It's why I can frequently leave my house later in my car than I'd have to arrive at my destination if coming by public transit. [0] There's no practical action I can take to "get the problem fixed", because it requires completely re-thinking how my local transit system works [likely to include the transit system spending many 100s of millions more per year on increased service] and, well, I've got a lot of other shit I can actually make progress on in my life rather than shaking a cane at the sky. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31723197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31723197
      - bluGill 3y ago
        You are supposed to vote. Don't vote for a party, vote for the results.
        sokoloff 3y ago
        The terrible transit service story above is in Massachusetts, which has been pretty close to single-party ruled for four decades or more. I'm going to go vote tomorrow, but many races are uncontested and certainly no one's running on a platform of "we want good public services" against someone else running on "we want terrible public services".
- robocat 3y ago
  Your answer is to ignore reality and wave a magic wand to fix everything. If they spent 100x as much public money (our bus service is hugely subsidised and still completely inadequate), a mesh network would still not be able to cover my regular travel needs. Let alone the more complex needs of others. Possibly we can solve the problem with a shared-Uber system. But there's no way my city government could be trusted to develop that. There are systems that have been developed out there but they are not in my country yet. It's been possible for a decade, so probably another decade away. Your answer is that I need to wait a decade at a bus stop for a new technology to be deployed in my city. Meanwhile "Full suspension of NZ Bus services impacting bus users from 2am Friday 14 July; Auckland bus users urged to plan ahead due to driver strike from Monday; Aucklanders urged to plan ahead with train services disrupted and Harbour Bridge closures possible; Auckland's buses are back on track - Bus driver shortage has reduced by 72%" Fuck that. There's a reason people spend a shit-ton on cars - because cars have value (they are not just status) and public buses don't work.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Cars have value, and for a few trips they are clearly better no matter what transit does. However for most of the trips people make every day a great transit system could exist that we be as good as - or better - than a car trip. Yes it would cost a lot more than the current transit system, and it would at best take a couple decades to build. However such a system could cover your needs. While it looks like your bus service is hugely subsidized,it is NOT! Sure the numbers are big, but look at per person in the city and the amount is tiny. If you forcefully took the money everyone spends on cars and put it to transit that would be many orders of magnitude more money than they are getting now. What great transit needs is about what you spend on a car in a month for just insurance and fuel (meaning maintenance and the cost of the car are not included), so if you get rid of a car (not all cars, one car!) you can save a lot of money and that is something your transit system could do in your city if you would invest. The a bus can go on strike is a problem to work on. You don't allow your electric service to turn off service because of a strike. You don't allow the hospital close because of a strike. (both of them do have unions and go on strike).
    - 3y ago

bluGill 3y ago

A bad network is something to fix not use as an excuse

sokoloff 3y ago
Until/unless it's fixed, the only reasonable daily life response is to "do what you need to do and is under your direct influence".
- bluGill 3y ago
  That defeatist attitude is why we are where we are. Yes you do what you need to to day, but part of that is getting the problem fixed.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    What do you want GP to do? Drive some buses to improve service? Star topologies coupled with infrequent service is often what makes public transit suck. It's why I can frequently leave my house later in my car than I'd have to arrive at my destination if coming by public transit. [0] There's no practical action I can take to "get the problem fixed", because it requires completely re-thinking how my local transit system works [likely to include the transit system spending many 100s of millions more per year on increased service] and, well, I've got a lot of other shit I can actually make progress on in my life rather than shaking a cane at the sky. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31723197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31723197
    - bluGill 3y ago
      You are supposed to vote. Don't vote for a party, vote for the results.
      - sokoloff 3y ago
        The terrible transit service story above is in Massachusetts, which has been pretty close to single-party ruled for four decades or more. I'm going to go vote tomorrow, but many races are uncontested and certainly no one's running on a platform of "we want good public services" against someone else running on "we want terrible public services".
robocat 3y ago
Your answer is to ignore reality and wave a magic wand to fix everything. If they spent 100x as much public money (our bus service is hugely subsidised and still completely inadequate), a mesh network would still not be able to cover my regular travel needs. Let alone the more complex needs of others. Possibly we can solve the problem with a shared-Uber system. But there's no way my city government could be trusted to develop that. There are systems that have been developed out there but they are not in my country yet. It's been possible for a decade, so probably another decade away. Your answer is that I need to wait a decade at a bus stop for a new technology to be deployed in my city. Meanwhile "Full suspension of NZ Bus services impacting bus users from 2am Friday 14 July; Auckland bus users urged to plan ahead due to driver strike from Monday; Aucklanders urged to plan ahead with train services disrupted and Harbour Bridge closures possible; Auckland's buses are back on track - Bus driver shortage has reduced by 72%" Fuck that. There's a reason people spend a shit-ton on cars - because cars have value (they are not just status) and public buses don't work.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Cars have value, and for a few trips they are clearly better no matter what transit does. However for most of the trips people make every day a great transit system could exist that we be as good as - or better - than a car trip. Yes it would cost a lot more than the current transit system, and it would at best take a couple decades to build. However such a system could cover your needs. While it looks like your bus service is hugely subsidized,it is NOT! Sure the numbers are big, but look at per person in the city and the amount is tiny. If you forcefully took the money everyone spends on cars and put it to transit that would be many orders of magnitude more money than they are getting now. What great transit needs is about what you spend on a car in a month for just insurance and fuel (meaning maintenance and the cost of the car are not included), so if you get rid of a car (not all cars, one car!) you can save a lot of money and that is something your transit system could do in your city if you would invest. The a bus can go on strike is a problem to work on. You don't allow your electric service to turn off service because of a strike. You don't allow the hospital close because of a strike. (both of them do have unions and go on strike).
  - 3y ago