4 ms·

More people (and not just the poorer) needing to use the public transport will definitely have a positive impact on how much money it gets. And if it is being m

More people (and not just the poorer) needing to use the public transport will definitely have a positive impact on how much money it gets. And if it is being more strict with people who break driving laws, I don't see why that shouldn't happen.

afavour 2y ago
"make people depend on the thing and that will incentivize the government to make it better" feels like logic that doesn't play out in reality.
- tremon 2y ago
  It only works in places where the government works for the people.
kube-system 2y ago
You'd think, but that is largely not the way that political winds are blowing. There are very high rates of people who are driving vehicles illegally in states that consistently vote against public transit projects. This is because there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status that "spending more will raise my taxes, and I already can't afford car insurance", and that public transit projects will not be built to their benefit.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  >there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status I don't think this is it at all. In the US we don't enforce social norms. The public transit experience in the US is dominated by an extreme antisocial minority ("crazy" bums, drug users, bluetooth speakers, etc). This is the true killer of public transit in America.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    Those things keeps the middle class from using it (outside of a couple of cities) or from voting for more public transit -- but it isn't the reason that poor people are driving without license/insurance -- which was what I was commenting on. Many of the poor in this country live in places that aren't well served by public transit, and probably won't be well served by any marginal investment in public transit. Most places in the US are generations behind in the investment that would need to be made both in terms of transit infrastructure and the housing infrastructure that would be necessary for viable public transit for the poor. Suburban sprawl is a huge challenge.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    It's the killer of public transit everywhere. The ability to avoid such people is a huge benefit of individual transportation. Nobody sane wants to be subjected to stuff like that. Anyone saying otherwise is virtue signalling.
    - afavour 2y ago
      I’d argue not everywhere, it just requires a critical mass of “normal” (anti-anti-social?) people to use it. Like in NYC. Most assuredly there are anti social people on the subway but they’re a tiny minority of overall passengers so people still use the system. But it’s a self-reinforcing thing that has danger of collapse, the more people drop off the more the ratio will change… and more will drop off.
    - const_cast 2y ago
      In many places it's just not a big enough problem. And, either way, it's a perception issue usually. I mean yeah, subway homeless people make you feel unsafe. But you're not actually unsafe. Just by taking the subway you're a few orders of magnitude less likely to die during your journey.
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
        I never felt "unsafe", but as soon as I could afford to drive to work, I chose that.
        pas 2y ago
        was it convenience?
cgriswald 2y ago
“Why should my tax dollars go to criminals who lost their driving privileges?”
chuckwolfe 2y ago
Lets stop pretending that speeding is the most dangerous drivers do I see - every day - near misses from missing exits, dangerous lane changes, and aggressive driving/brake checks - and all these infractions go unpoliced

afavour 2y ago

"make people depend on the thing and that will incentivize the government to make it better" feels like logic that doesn't play out in reality.

tremon 2y ago
It only works in places where the government works for the people.

kube-system 2y ago

You'd think, but that is largely not the way that political winds are blowing. There are very high rates of people who are driving vehicles illegally in states that consistently vote against public transit projects. This is because there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status that "spending more will raise my taxes, and I already can't afford car insurance", and that public transit projects will not be built to their benefit.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
>there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status I don't think this is it at all. In the US we don't enforce social norms. The public transit experience in the US is dominated by an extreme antisocial minority ("crazy" bums, drug users, bluetooth speakers, etc). This is the true killer of public transit in America.
- kube-system 2y ago
  Those things keeps the middle class from using it (outside of a couple of cities) or from voting for more public transit -- but it isn't the reason that poor people are driving without license/insurance -- which was what I was commenting on. Many of the poor in this country live in places that aren't well served by public transit, and probably won't be well served by any marginal investment in public transit. Most places in the US are generations behind in the investment that would need to be made both in terms of transit infrastructure and the housing infrastructure that would be necessary for viable public transit for the poor. Suburban sprawl is a huge challenge.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  It's the killer of public transit everywhere. The ability to avoid such people is a huge benefit of individual transportation. Nobody sane wants to be subjected to stuff like that. Anyone saying otherwise is virtue signalling.
  - afavour 2y ago
    I’d argue not everywhere, it just requires a critical mass of “normal” (anti-anti-social?) people to use it. Like in NYC. Most assuredly there are anti social people on the subway but they’re a tiny minority of overall passengers so people still use the system. But it’s a self-reinforcing thing that has danger of collapse, the more people drop off the more the ratio will change… and more will drop off.
  - const_cast 2y ago
    In many places it's just not a big enough problem. And, either way, it's a perception issue usually. I mean yeah, subway homeless people make you feel unsafe. But you're not actually unsafe. Just by taking the subway you're a few orders of magnitude less likely to die during your journey.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      I never felt "unsafe", but as soon as I could afford to drive to work, I chose that.
      - pas 2y ago
        was it convenience?

cgriswald 2y ago

“Why should my tax dollars go to criminals who lost their driving privileges?”

chuckwolfe 2y ago

Lets stop pretending that speeding is the most dangerous drivers do I see - every day - near misses from missing exits, dangerous lane changes, and aggressive driving/brake checks - and all these infractions go unpoliced