Live data from Hacker News

Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

reuters.com

121–130 of 181 posts

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#121
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most ghettos aren't built to be ghettos. They were built as nice neighborhoods and have nothing structurally wrong with them, but then had criminals and shitbags wreck the place. Ghettoification can in fact be reversed without any changes to infrastructure by simply having nice people move in who give a shit and make an effort to clean up and maintain their properties. This is derogatorily called "gentrification". Al…

I mean in the US a bunch of them are still the remaining product of redlining policies where racial minorities were allowed to live but banks would not give loans. Housing segregation was planned and enforced. That sounds a lot like intentional creation of a ghetto. And later when cities need to invest in building amenities, or raze neighborhoods to make way for infrastructure, often it's been the minority neighborho…

Which is a more likely explanation for why banks did not make loans in redlined neighborhoods?

A) Every bank is run by racists who are sufficiently racist to ignore a profit opportunity

B) The neighborhoods are bad credit risks

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That spending pattern means that automobile transportation is very valuable compared to alternatives.

Or it means oil and automobiles are lucrative industries with huge amount of influence. The reasoning of "we spend a lot of money so it must be good" is just bad. No, we spend a lot of money on stupid shit all the time. Both historically and currently.

I don't think people are as foolish as that when spending large amounts of their own money. There must be a good reason for it.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or it means oil and automobiles are lucrative industries with huge amount of influence. The reasoning of "we spend a lot of money so it must be good" is just bad. No, we spend a lot of money on stupid shit all the time. Both historically and currently.

I don't think people are as foolish as that when spending large amounts of their own money. There must be a good reason for it.

The reason is they have no choice. Consumers are the bottom of the totem pole.

Americans spend on average 15% of their gross income on automobile transportation. That's not including their taxes that went towards said automobiles, roads, and oil.

Nobody actually wants to do that. If you could get to work without an automobile, you would. But you can't, can you?

Automobiles are parasidic in nature. To work, they require vast amounts of space and sprawling urban design. But when you get said vast amounts of space and sprawling urban design, then automobiles are the only thing that makes sense.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some states in the US with large numbers of EV drivers are already kinda doing this. I now have to pay a flat EV tax on my registration, although it's still less than I'd pay annually in gas tax if I drove an ICE car.

Those taxes pay for road upkeep, as well as other state programs, but not carbon sequestration.

And I don't believe any states manage to cover the full cost of just their infrastructure and upkeep through use taxes (gas tax, registration, tolls). Non-drivers still end up subsidizing the remainder.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#125
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean in the US a bunch of them are still the remaining product of redlining policies where racial minorities were allowed to live but banks would not give loans. Housing segregation was planned and enforced. That sounds a lot like intentional creation of a ghetto. And later when cities need to invest in building amenities, or raze neighborhoods to make way for infrastructure, often it's been the minority neighborho…

Which is a more likely explanation for why banks did not make loans in redlined neighborhoods? A) Every bank is run by racists who are sufficiently racist to ignore a profit opportunity B) The neighborhoods are bad credit risks

Do you mean today or in 1950? In 1950 I'll go with racists for the majority of banks. Today race is not a factor, but credit risks are still important.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people are as foolish as that when spending large amounts of their own money. There must be a good reason for it.

The reason is they have no choice. Consumers are the bottom of the totem pole. Americans spend on average 15% of their gross income on automobile transportation. That's not including their taxes that went towards said automobiles, roads, and oil. Nobody actually wants to do that. If you could get to work without an automobile, you would. But you can't, can you? Automobiles are parasidic in nature. To work, they requi…

That's my point. Automobiles are much better than any other alternative.

We have a car centric built environment because people have rationally decided for many valid reasons that automobiles are the best way to get around. It's not because they are "parasitic", whatever that means.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#127
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public transit makes the most sense to fund with property taxes proportional to the benefit that public transit brings in. Which is essentially zero in many cities. And even in cities with transit, an expansion should result in a lot more benefit than they are currently getting, but they need that money now not in 10 years after that expansion is done and the city sees that benefit.

> Which is essentially zero in many cities. ??? How does this make any sense at all? You have no basically economy without transit. And you get a far greater return from mass transit than from roads. > And even in cities with transit, an expansion should result in a lot more benefit than they are currently getting, but they need that money now not in 10 years after that expansion is done and the city sees that benefi…

When I said transit I mean mass transit. Most people do not refer to roads as transit even though they are part of your transportation network.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a more likely explanation for why banks did not make loans in redlined neighborhoods? A) Every bank is run by racists who are sufficiently racist to ignore a profit opportunity B) The neighborhoods are bad credit risks

Do you mean today or in 1950? In 1950 I'll go with racists for the majority of banks. Today race is not a factor, but credit risks are still important.

You only need one bank to seize the profit by making a loan. Every single bank was motivated by racism to deny profitable loans?

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most ghettos aren't built to be ghettos. They were built as nice neighborhoods and have nothing structurally wrong with them, but then had criminals and shitbags wreck the place. Ghettoification can in fact be reversed without any changes to infrastructure by simply having nice people move in who give a shit and make an effort to clean up and maintain their properties. This is derogatorily called "gentrification". Al…

The ghetto is that bottom 20% living in Hell, not the 79% who merely deal with things that suck. Although I was more referring to our systems more broadly (health care, education, transportation - the topic of this post), let's go with neighborhoods. Are you really trying to pretend that red-lining didn't happen? Or that de facto sundown towns didn't exist at least into the 1980s?

While things are bad for some people, calling the bottom 20% living in Hell is an exaggeration that is nowhere near correct. People always complain about their situation and think it is somehow much worse than other people, so if you see someone who is in worse shape you can think it is a living hell. However the reality is very different, and if you step back and look you discover most people in that bottom 20% are happy overall despite having imperfections.

Re: Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

#130
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also false that transit prices are small, by the way, at least globally. Where I live (third world), taking the subway daily to and from work amounts to 14% of minimum wage

Cars cost more than transit for most people. However transit is expensive no matter how you look at it. The money to run it much come from someplace.

That's just because the roads are built out by the Department of Transportation no?

Like if you had to drive on toll roads built underground then nobody would ever drive (see Hyperloop). I think the big mistake being made is people are arguing for free subways and really we should just go to free buses first.

Post reply on HN