5 ms·
You've identified a problem: public transport in some places sucks. But then veered away from the obvious solution: invest in it to make it not suck.
by estebank 3y ago
You've identified a problem: public transport in some places sucks. But then veered away from the obvious solution: invest in it to make it not suck.
- zzzeek 3y agothrowing money at urban problems does not necessarily have a great track record, and NYCTA has had lots of issues with corruption when they do have money to spend. Id be pretty skeptical that giving them a lot of money would mean you can hop on a train in 5 minutes at 2 am, it wouldnt even be cost effective to run that many trains at odd hours. Cars are terrific for this use case, however. NYC cops have like a billion dollar budget and while they are great at protecting businesses in wealthy areas they are not very popular in lower income areas as they are both blase and overly brutal at the same time, their huge budget not having helped that aspect very much.
- estebank 3y agoSomehow the argument against more money for infrastructure is never levied against freeway expansions.
- jodrellblank 3y agoHaha, but it is though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds-v2-qyCc8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ds-v2-qyCc8 "Throwing Good Money After Bad Car Infrastructure - Wonderland Road" - on the road widening project of Wonderland Road in Toronto.
- ryukafalz 3y agoIt is in urbanist circles; it's not by mass media and by the elected officials who can actually do something about it.
- reocha 3y agoCops and public transport are two completely different things.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agothrowing money at the NYC subway seems to have a generally great track record (albeit one featuring less efficiency than throwing money at other global subway systems). NYC could not function without it.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoThe 7 line extension cost over $3 billion dollars in 2023 terms to build 1.5 miles of track from Times Sq to Hudson Yards and build one new station there. I defy anyone to conclude this represented good value.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoThe NYC transit system costs $20BN/year to operate, serves a population of almost 9M people and pre pandemic had nearly 10 million passenger trips a day; currently 5M. Montana spends $1BN/year on roadways and receives another $3BN/year in federal funding and serves a population of 1M people. The NYC subways system moves five times the population of Montana every day and costs half as much per capita. Do go on about how subways are a waste of money.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoSubways are not a waste of money: throwing money at the NYC subway system under the current set of parameters is a waste of money. P.S. you're also comparing apples and oranges; you're only looking at the MTA operating budget; not the operating + capital budget which the Montana numbers represent.
- tmnvix 3y agoIt was probably good value for anyone that owned any surrounding property. Ideally the increase in property value should be captured by the public who made the investment - self funding effectively. But that's just the old LVT argument.
- JAlexoid 3y agoNYC is one of the safest places in the US... and even with fairly poor mass transit system - it's still is incredibly good by American standards. I moved from NYC an hour north, to be more isolated than the "impersonal big cities". I barely know any of my neighbors - because there are no sidewalks and everyone is forced to drive for anything. Car dependence kills people, kills communities and reduces your QoL.
- zzzeek 3y agoYou should move back to the city, then. I moved out because I had enough of the crowds and awful mass transit and I'm good with it. The NYC cops were absolutely awful for us as well.
- hot_gril 3y agoNYC mass transit is poor? I've never lived there, but during my extended visits, it seemed like I could get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time.
- JAlexoid 3y agoRelative to less dense global cities - yes, it's poor. In American terms - it's probably one of the better ones.
- cbozeman 3y agoPublic transit does not work in a place like Montana or Wyoming. Sorry. Too large, too sparsely populated. Same reason it won't work for most of Texas either. It's fine in Dallas or Austin, parts of Fort Worth... it doesn't scale to Lubbock or New Braunfels. A lot of people have no interest in living in your concrete jungle... myself included.
- Muromec 3y agoI though you are talking about a village with 200 residents, so I had to look it up and oops, it's quarter million city? You gotta be kidding.
- ponector 3y agoYes, that is funny to read. European cities with population less than 100k could have public transport and bicycle infrastructure while much bigger American city could not.
- bluGill 3y agoThere are American cities of less than 100k people that have public transport and bicycle infrastructure. However nobody knows about them.
- JAlexoid 3y agoNo one is asking you to live there or not have a vehicle. What makes it a problem is the financially unsustainable suburban sprawl(single family zoning laws or covenants with the same effect) and people's expectations of car owners being catered to primarily. I mean... why else would high density cities like Atlanta and DFW have massive X+Y lane interstates cut through the city? In so many places in the US it's straight up impossible to walk 1000ft.
- moojd 3y ago> No one is asking you to live there or not have a vehicle. Several of the most upvoted comments in this very thread are advocating banning vehicles.