4 ms·

I'd wager it is technically a "cheaper" problem, but I'd also consider the axis that this is public transit, an industry known for being neglected budget-wise.

I'd wager it is technically a "cheaper" problem, but I'd also consider the axis that this is public transit, an industry known for being neglected budget-wise. Reverse engineering/reimplementation with competent parties may be laughably out of budget.

deepsun 1y ago
It's neglected because public transport is usually subsidized in almost every country. It's just not directly profitable, like roads. US is in general very reluctant to invest into profitless projects.
- xethos 1y ago
  No, but like roads, public transit leads to greater economic activity and boosts GDP. Good public transit also increases social and financial mobility, makes other clean air targets easier to hit, and decreases medical costs [0] while increasing the number of financially-productive hours a citizen can work - because a healthier citizen is a more economically productive one. America seems utterly incapable of grasping many second-order effects. For another example, look to the ROI of investing in the (coninuously underfunded) IRS [1] [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4917017/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4917017/ [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tax-audits-recover-12-dollars-for-every-dollar-spent-2023-6?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tax-audits-recover-12-do...
  - deepsun 1y ago
    Yes, thanks for elaborating. I seem to be not clear in my point: that public transit is subsidized and it's a good thing, we should not expect to see an immediate profit from it, and should not expect a commercial company willing to invest into it.
    - xethos 1y ago
      I appreciate the clarification, my mistake taking your original comment the wrong way. I'm a little reassured too - what seems to be an Americanism (things that don't turn a profit aren't worth doing) feels like it's seeping into my locale as well, so I may be overly sensitive to it. It's nice to be told I was wrong in this instance.

deepsun 1y ago

It's neglected because public transport is usually subsidized in almost every country. It's just not directly profitable, like roads. US is in general very reluctant to invest into profitless projects.

xethos 1y ago
No, but like roads, public transit leads to greater economic activity and boosts GDP. Good public transit also increases social and financial mobility, makes other clean air targets easier to hit, and decreases medical costs [0] while increasing the number of financially-productive hours a citizen can work - because a healthier citizen is a more economically productive one. America seems utterly incapable of grasping many second-order effects. For another example, look to the ROI of investing in the (coninuously underfunded) IRS [1] [0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4917017/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4917017/ [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tax-audits-recover-12-dollars-for-every-dollar-spent-2023-6?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/irs-tax-audits-recover-12-do...
- deepsun 1y ago
  Yes, thanks for elaborating. I seem to be not clear in my point: that public transit is subsidized and it's a good thing, we should not expect to see an immediate profit from it, and should not expect a commercial company willing to invest into it.
  - xethos 1y ago
    I appreciate the clarification, my mistake taking your original comment the wrong way. I'm a little reassured too - what seems to be an Americanism (things that don't turn a profit aren't worth doing) feels like it's seeping into my locale as well, so I may be overly sensitive to it. It's nice to be told I was wrong in this instance.