4 ms·

> Big-city transit has an equilibrium point, and it is incredibly stable. Every serious transit city in the world ends up in the same place You're cherry-picki

by mmooss 1y ago

> Big-city transit has an equilibrium point, and it is incredibly stable. Every serious transit city in the world ends up in the same place You're cherry-picking your own examples. It worked in Iowa City. Y Combinator and much of SV would be out of business if innovators followed that thinking. One reason is that people do come up with new ideas; that's how the world changes. The other is that the world changes, and what didn't work before now works - costs change and value changes, and now it's worthwhile. For example, with congestion pricing and other rapidly increasong costs of NYC car ownership, there's more value in free transit. Oddly, it's the thinking advocated by many HN posts, denigrating the innovation under discussion as impossible, useless, etc. > without sustainability, a political shift will kill it That can be said of many things. A political shift could kill military funding in the US.

chii 1y ago
> A political shift could kill military funding in the US. and lose the very thing that keeps the US top dog. You're implying that political shifts could happen to shift _anything_. That's not true for things of fundamental importance. So is transit of fundamental importance?
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  > You're implying that political shifts could happen to shift _anything_. Of course it could! One of the key lesson of the twentieth century is that, with political will, a modern state can do almost anything and political power can change the world dramatically very fast, for the better or the worse…
- freefrog1234 1y ago
  > and lose the very thing that keeps the US top dog. You're implying that political shifts could happen to shift _anything_. It was the USD as reserve currency that enabled the US to fund it's military to a point that should have bankrupted the US. The US military hasn't won a war outside the Americas since WW2. With a budget half or a quarter of the current, the US would remain secure behind two oceans. I do agree that politically the military budget will remain high due to the relationship between the MIC and US government.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > The US military hasn't won a war outside the Americas since WW2. The Gulf War and the war with ISIS. But yes, lots of bad results in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. > With a budget half or a quarter of the current, the US would remain secure behind two oceans. I do agree that politically the military budget will remain high due to the relationship between the MIC and US government. The US can't be a self-sufficient island. It's not even close to plausible. Also, people do care about freedom for others everywhere; it's not just Americans who deserve it.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  Yes. Transportation is of fundamental importance for the economy.
saithound 1y ago
> You're cherry-picking your own examples. It worked in Iowa City. Indeed, it worked in Brisbane (a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S.) and Lanzhou (comparable to Boston-Cambridge-Newton): congestion was reduced, the environment benefited, and usage increased in many cities that dislodged from that equilibrium and switched to a free-of-charge or symbolic-charge model. I don't think GP's claim stands, for transit cities big or small.
- benatkin 1y ago
  > a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S. That doesn't make it a serious transit city
  - skylurk 1y ago
    It's an order of magnitude larger than Iowa City, though.
  - saithound 1y ago
    Odd hill to die on, but if you wish to argue that Iowa City is a serious transit city, but Brisbane and Lanzhou are not, feel free to state your definition of serious transit city. These cities are bigger than Iowa City and their public transport share of journeys to work is higher than any similarly-sized U.S. metro area. Beware: if there are no true Scotsmen left, and your definition of serious transit city excludes everything apart from ~10 European cities, the conclusions that one can draw from the policies of serious transit cities will be so limited that they will in fact be useless.
    - benatkin 1y ago
      I was just pointing that out from the post you replied to, I don't agree with the author. However, I think that Iowa City isn't doing the symbolic fare, and that Brisbane's 50 cent fare would make some kind of a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares
littlecosmic 1y ago
Maybe the military should pillage all the places it goes to self-fund?
- Qwertious 1y ago
  The moment the military pillages an area, its ability to fight insurgency in that area vanishes. And since most of the US's wars have been of the anti-insurgency variety (barring the first few days, or possibly hours, that it takes for the full might of the US military to topple a middle-eastern govt), that would be a fundamental strategic failure.
- Gud 1y ago
  Why is this being down voted? This worked well in Iraq.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    ?
littlestymaar 1y ago
> Oddly, it's the thinking advocated by many HN posts, denigrating the innovation under discussion as impossible, useless, etc. A significant fraction of HN has been raised with the idea that “natural” innovation can only arise from the private sector competing on a market, and every attempt at public-funded out-of-market innovation is seen as “unnatural” and doomed to fail. And like all religion, it's pretty hopeless to refute it with rational arguments.
- mmooss 1y ago
  I find this attitude less common than it used to be. (Also, while it doesn't change your point, I find the same response to private-sector innovation: the top post on most threads is how useless/pointless/ridiculous the OP is.) > hopeless Here you lose me. I find people respond very well to rational arguments, presented with openness, curiosity, and respect. I think hopelessness is the religion of this day.
bko 1y ago
I don't get your comparison to VC model. Sure it's temping to sell $10 for $5 and many VCs fund this business for a while. But the difference is there isn't an infinite backstop. It's not really new or innovative to give things away from "free" and fund it through some other means. But that's the problem. There's a disconnect with the service and what it costs. You should charge roughly what it costs to operate because that's information. People should ask why it costs so much. People should consider alternatives. Trying to remove prices is like fighting climate change by removing thermometers.
- ehnto 1y ago
  That is only true if public transport is supposed to participate in the free market economy, which it doesn't have to. If it is decided by a city government that we want public transport as a public service, paid for by taxes and other means then removing prices is an option that could make sense in the right situations.
  - bko 1y ago
    Then it's covered by the government and cost is more or less ignored. It still costs something but now there is no or little visibility as to how much it costs which is obviously bad for incentives and general governance
    - ehnto 1y ago
      Bad for who? The incentive is for more people to use the system, since we are aiming for a Greater Good kind of outcome. Cost and efficiency becomes a government problem, which we manage through policy and voting. The road system doesn't have a price tag per trip, yet it's costs are managed through policy and governance. No difference here in my opinion.
- mmooss 1y ago
  I don't meant to compare the VC model specifically (though I can see the givaway comparison now that you mention it), just innnovation generally. I think your point about economic signals is very good - I wonder if any locality charges at cost; does NYC do it now? - though 'charging at cost' undermines the goals: universal mobility, reducing climate impact, reducing congestion, and (I think) increasing economic liquidity and competition (e.g., in the labor market, in retail, etc.). We need another solution: Maybe vouchers for people based on income? That becomes much more complex. Also, I would gues it impacts ease of use and adoption - imagine being able to just hop on any passing bus, as opposed to finding your payment, going only through the front door, paying, etc.

by mmooss 1y ago

chii 1y ago

> A political shift could kill military funding in the US. and lose the very thing that keeps the US top dog. You're implying that political shifts could happen to shift _anything_. That's not true for things of fundamental importance. So is transit of fundamental importance?

littlestymaar 1y ago
> You're implying that political shifts could happen to shift _anything_. Of course it could! One of the key lesson of the twentieth century is that, with political will, a modern state can do almost anything and political power can change the world dramatically very fast, for the better or the worse…
freefrog1234 1y ago
> and lose the very thing that keeps the US top dog. You're implying that political shifts could happen to shift _anything_. It was the USD as reserve currency that enabled the US to fund it's military to a point that should have bankrupted the US. The US military hasn't won a war outside the Americas since WW2. With a budget half or a quarter of the current, the US would remain secure behind two oceans. I do agree that politically the military budget will remain high due to the relationship between the MIC and US government.
- mmooss 1y ago
  > The US military hasn't won a war outside the Americas since WW2. The Gulf War and the war with ISIS. But yes, lots of bad results in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. > With a budget half or a quarter of the current, the US would remain secure behind two oceans. I do agree that politically the military budget will remain high due to the relationship between the MIC and US government. The US can't be a self-sufficient island. It's not even close to plausible. Also, people do care about freedom for others everywhere; it's not just Americans who deserve it.
Braxton1980 1y ago
Yes. Transportation is of fundamental importance for the economy.

saithound 1y ago

> You're cherry-picking your own examples. It worked in Iowa City. Indeed, it worked in Brisbane (a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S.) and Lanzhou (comparable to Boston-Cambridge-Newton): congestion was reduced, the environment benefited, and usage increased in many cities that dislodged from that equilibrium and switched to a free-of-charge or symbolic-charge model. I don't think GP's claim stands, for transit cities big or small.

benatkin 1y ago
> a metro area comparable to Baltimore in the U.S. That doesn't make it a serious transit city
- skylurk 1y ago
  It's an order of magnitude larger than Iowa City, though.
- saithound 1y ago
  Odd hill to die on, but if you wish to argue that Iowa City is a serious transit city, but Brisbane and Lanzhou are not, feel free to state your definition of serious transit city. These cities are bigger than Iowa City and their public transport share of journeys to work is higher than any similarly-sized U.S. metro area. Beware: if there are no true Scotsmen left, and your definition of serious transit city excludes everything apart from ~10 European cities, the conclusions that one can draw from the policies of serious transit cities will be so limited that they will in fact be useless.
  - benatkin 1y ago
    I was just pointing that out from the post you replied to, I don't agree with the author. However, I think that Iowa City isn't doing the symbolic fare, and that Brisbane's 50 cent fare would make some kind of a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translink_(Queensland)#Fares

littlecosmic 1y ago

Maybe the military should pillage all the places it goes to self-fund?

Qwertious 1y ago
The moment the military pillages an area, its ability to fight insurgency in that area vanishes. And since most of the US's wars have been of the anti-insurgency variety (barring the first few days, or possibly hours, that it takes for the full might of the US military to topple a middle-eastern govt), that would be a fundamental strategic failure.
Gud 1y ago
Why is this being down voted? This worked well in Iraq.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  ?

littlestymaar 1y ago

> Oddly, it's the thinking advocated by many HN posts, denigrating the innovation under discussion as impossible, useless, etc. A significant fraction of HN has been raised with the idea that “natural” innovation can only arise from the private sector competing on a market, and every attempt at public-funded out-of-market innovation is seen as “unnatural” and doomed to fail. And like all religion, it's pretty hopeless to refute it with rational arguments.

mmooss 1y ago
I find this attitude less common than it used to be. (Also, while it doesn't change your point, I find the same response to private-sector innovation: the top post on most threads is how useless/pointless/ridiculous the OP is.) > hopeless Here you lose me. I find people respond very well to rational arguments, presented with openness, curiosity, and respect. I think hopelessness is the religion of this day.

bko 1y ago

I don't get your comparison to VC model. Sure it's temping to sell $10 for $5 and many VCs fund this business for a while. But the difference is there isn't an infinite backstop. It's not really new or innovative to give things away from "free" and fund it through some other means. But that's the problem. There's a disconnect with the service and what it costs. You should charge roughly what it costs to operate because that's information. People should ask why it costs so much. People should consider alternatives. Trying to remove prices is like fighting climate change by removing thermometers.

ehnto 1y ago
That is only true if public transport is supposed to participate in the free market economy, which it doesn't have to. If it is decided by a city government that we want public transport as a public service, paid for by taxes and other means then removing prices is an option that could make sense in the right situations.
- bko 1y ago
  Then it's covered by the government and cost is more or less ignored. It still costs something but now there is no or little visibility as to how much it costs which is obviously bad for incentives and general governance
  - ehnto 1y ago
    Bad for who? The incentive is for more people to use the system, since we are aiming for a Greater Good kind of outcome. Cost and efficiency becomes a government problem, which we manage through policy and voting. The road system doesn't have a price tag per trip, yet it's costs are managed through policy and governance. No difference here in my opinion.
mmooss 1y ago
I don't meant to compare the VC model specifically (though I can see the givaway comparison now that you mention it), just innnovation generally. I think your point about economic signals is very good - I wonder if any locality charges at cost; does NYC do it now? - though 'charging at cost' undermines the goals: universal mobility, reducing climate impact, reducing congestion, and (I think) increasing economic liquidity and competition (e.g., in the labor market, in retail, etc.). We need another solution: Maybe vouchers for people based on income? That becomes much more complex. Also, I would gues it impacts ease of use and adoption - imagine being able to just hop on any passing bus, as opposed to finding your payment, going only through the front door, paying, etc.