4 ms·

> Or dedicated lanes for busses could work and may be drastically cheaper This is discussed a bit in urban planning circles, one of the reasons trams or light

by jamil7 2y ago

> Or dedicated lanes for busses could work and may be drastically cheaper This is discussed a bit in urban planning circles, one of the reasons trams or light rail is preferred is political, it's much harder for some austerity government to come into power in a city and remove tramlines than remove bus and bike lanes.

stego-tech 2y ago
Literally this right here. For all the folks jumping in and downvoting my OP by screeching the same tired talking points Capital uses to grease the wheels of politics (“it’s cheaper per passenger mile”, “no more empty seats”, “nobody goes downtown anymore anyway”, “adapt to the dynamism of your urban development”), the reality is that trains are damn near impossible to cut through BS austerity versus flimsy bus and bike lanes. That’s the point. We’re a grown-ass species that still behaves like chaotic toddlers when it comes to urban planning (we don’t really give actual planners the resources, authority, and timelines they need to execute), letting Capital dictate where to build fancy neighborhoods and malls in the middle of nowhere because it’s cheaper for them, rather than forcing and incentivizing modern development near existing transit infrastructure. In other words, we literally permit the developments they then use to justify dismantling mass transit projects in the future, and then a whole bunch of goldfish swarm the comments to go “NoBoDy CoUlD hAvE pReDiCtEd ThIs!” The brutal core of this argument remains those who demand we take urban planning and development seriously to benefit the masses, versus those who seek fortune and riches bootlicking those who would benefit from chaos and disorganization. I hate to be that blunt about it, but I think the HN crowd can swallow that bitter medicine better than most. If you’re all-in on a car-focused city, then you’re going to be disappointed. If you have gripes with your current mass transit (like Boston’s infamous Green Line), then it’s better to address those gripes directly than throw the baby out with the bathwater in favor of something newer, shinier, and worse.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  you already put me off reading your comment with the lead. when you lose on logos, retreat to pathos i guess
- triceratops 2y ago
  Great you've got your trains. Where I need to go is 3 miles away from the station. How do I get there if I don't want to haul a bike on the train? What about when the austerity government comes into power and cuts this last-mile connectivity? Does everyone who doesn't live within half a mile of a train station not matter? This bus-hate is irrational and self-defeating. A successful mass transit system has multiple modes of transport. Making one of them cheaper than it is now can only be a good thing.
- _dark_matter_ 2y ago
  Yeah I think my complaint still stands, which is that they already tried this where I live, and having a literal train straight downtown did not incentivize building there at all.

by jamil7 2y ago

stego-tech 2y ago

Literally this right here. For all the folks jumping in and downvoting my OP by screeching the same tired talking points Capital uses to grease the wheels of politics (“it’s cheaper per passenger mile”, “no more empty seats”, “nobody goes downtown anymore anyway”, “adapt to the dynamism of your urban development”), the reality is that trains are damn near impossible to cut through BS austerity versus flimsy bus and bike lanes. That’s the point. We’re a grown-ass species that still behaves like chaotic toddlers when it comes to urban planning (we don’t really give actual planners the resources, authority, and timelines they need to execute), letting Capital dictate where to build fancy neighborhoods and malls in the middle of nowhere because it’s cheaper for them, rather than forcing and incentivizing modern development near existing transit infrastructure. In other words, we literally permit the developments they then use to justify dismantling mass transit projects in the future, and then a whole bunch of goldfish swarm the comments to go “NoBoDy CoUlD hAvE pReDiCtEd ThIs!” The brutal core of this argument remains those who demand we take urban planning and development seriously to benefit the masses, versus those who seek fortune and riches bootlicking those who would benefit from chaos and disorganization. I hate to be that blunt about it, but I think the HN crowd can swallow that bitter medicine better than most. If you’re all-in on a car-focused city, then you’re going to be disappointed. If you have gripes with your current mass transit (like Boston’s infamous Green Line), then it’s better to address those gripes directly than throw the baby out with the bathwater in favor of something newer, shinier, and worse.

whimsicalism 2y ago
you already put me off reading your comment with the lead. when you lose on logos, retreat to pathos i guess
triceratops 2y ago
Great you've got your trains. Where I need to go is 3 miles away from the station. How do I get there if I don't want to haul a bike on the train? What about when the austerity government comes into power and cuts this last-mile connectivity? Does everyone who doesn't live within half a mile of a train station not matter? This bus-hate is irrational and self-defeating. A successful mass transit system has multiple modes of transport. Making one of them cheaper than it is now can only be a good thing.
_dark_matter_ 2y ago
Yeah I think my complaint still stands, which is that they already tried this where I live, and having a literal train straight downtown did not incentivize building there at all.