3 ms·

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 sti

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).
- robocat 3y ago
  Now you are talking magic mushrooms. > but look at per person in the city and the amount is tiny In a city of about 400,000 people the per-person taxes that pay for the system are no-fucking-where-near "tiny". For a grid public network that also works at night the costs would easily be thousands per year per person (I did look up the current figures). The bus service is virtually unused by the vast majority: On average, Christchurch residents spend 221 hours a year behind a wheel to just 10 hours on public transport. For Aucklanders, it's 187 hours to 25, and for Wellingtonians, 134 hours to 34. Because buses are simply unusable without rediculous compromises. I know because I try to use buses and this expensive system is usually unavailable to me (my parents place has no service, there is no service at night, I can't carry tools, trailer, zero recreational trips). I have lived without a car for plenty of time (6 months last year) so I know the actual individual costs and benefits. Other people can't afford the compromises required to use the bus service. If you can afford a car you use one because the public alternatives are shit. Only a despotic Stalin could force most people to use a public transport system in my city. Perhaps you don't believe in freedom of choice. You wish to tax people to pay for a system they don't want to use. Cars are the long term outcome of people voting with their feet and their wallets. I understand why public transport is good. But you seem unwilling to listen to why public transport in my city is unusably bad. > 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. Condescending. Even the best public transport I have used is often a shit experience. Wave that magic wand again and give us all our own unicorn

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).

robocat 3y ago
Now you are talking magic mushrooms. > but look at per person in the city and the amount is tiny In a city of about 400,000 people the per-person taxes that pay for the system are no-fucking-where-near "tiny". For a grid public network that also works at night the costs would easily be thousands per year per person (I did look up the current figures). The bus service is virtually unused by the vast majority: On average, Christchurch residents spend 221 hours a year behind a wheel to just 10 hours on public transport. For Aucklanders, it's 187 hours to 25, and for Wellingtonians, 134 hours to 34. Because buses are simply unusable without rediculous compromises. I know because I try to use buses and this expensive system is usually unavailable to me (my parents place has no service, there is no service at night, I can't carry tools, trailer, zero recreational trips). I have lived without a car for plenty of time (6 months last year) so I know the actual individual costs and benefits. Other people can't afford the compromises required to use the bus service. If you can afford a car you use one because the public alternatives are shit. Only a despotic Stalin could force most people to use a public transport system in my city. Perhaps you don't believe in freedom of choice. You wish to tax people to pay for a system they don't want to use. Cars are the long term outcome of people voting with their feet and their wallets. I understand why public transport is good. But you seem unwilling to listen to why public transport in my city is unusably bad. > 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. Condescending. Even the best public transport I have used is often a shit experience. Wave that magic wand again and give us all our own unicorn