Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Geneva makes public transport temporarily free to combat pollution spike

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 181 posts

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

#141

Post by kccqzy »

colechristensen wrote: post #63
bkettle wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Riding Caltrain during peak hours is totally fine and not unpleasant at all, particularly with the new trains (I do it most days and am writing this comment while doing so)

I left California before the new trains were a thing, but peak hours going north starting in Mountain View meant standing room only tightly packed on the world's more unstable train cars.

I took Caltrain regularly pre-pandemic when I had a job in Palo Alto and going to SF. It was not bad at all. Other cities like NYC had way more packed trains.

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

#142

Post by komali2 »

ferguess_k wrote: post #71
komali2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and making the traffic slower for the bus in doing so. Strong agree except here, busses should have their own lanes at all expense to cars - even if this means entire roads are now no longer available to cars. The private car should be the slowest, least convenient way to get where you're going.

Agree with dedicated bus lanes. But your attitude is problematic. You sounds like private cars are your enemies. Private car drivers, in a whole, are also public (just not public services). If you count them as your enemies, they will vote against you. If you have this attitude, please never ever get into a private car. Good luck!

I drive a private motorcycle sometimes. It's not like I don't have empathy. I get it - the allure of the ultimately selfish option that puts your comfort and convenience over everyone else's. In abomination cities like Houston it's not like there's an alternative, and society kowtows to you so much as a driver it's no wonder why every driver parked on a sidewalk is confused as I explain to them why what they're doing is wrong. You can almost see their thoughts writ across their face: "but, there was no parking available, and this was free space. Free space in cities is... For cars..." Never mind they're about to get out of their car and become a pedestrian themselves!

Thanks for the warning, but a couple decades of activism has tought me long ago to let go of the idea of winning total support from the most strident opposition. Sometimes people just need to be dragged kicking and screaming into a better world for them and their neighbors. That's ok.

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

#143

Post by Mawr »

IshKebab wrote: post #103
kccqzy wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's absolutely not cheaper to drive your family into the city. You said owning+driving a car; did you really take into account ownership costs (maintenance, insurance etc) and driving costs (tolls, parking)? Just the cost of parking alone dwarfs the cost of the train.

Sure but most families need a car anyway, and once you have one the costs of ownership, maintenance, insurance etc. are irrelevant to the costs of individual trips.

You want to buy a second-hand car. What's the first thing you check? Yep, the mileage. The cost of a car is basically down to its depreciation, which is basically down to its mileage.

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

#144

Post by Mawr »

baggy_trough wrote: post #138
bluGill wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass transit can be just as good as cars for most people at far less cost. For many people transit because it can avoid congestion and go faster than cars (even on an uncontested highway) transit should be better. However transit is lacking the network needed to make it that good. Note that a large part of why cars are better is the network exists. If you had to drive on dirt (not even gravel!) roads that became impa…

I would just propose that the transit advocates concentrate on that goal ("Mass transit can be just as good as cars for most people at far less cost") in one small area, because in most areas in the United States, it is currently extraordinarily far from reality. Also, they should do this without crippling cars, since that would be far easier to do than producing a compelling alternative to them as they currently exi…

> Also, they should do this without crippling cars,

Do you mean without continuing to give them 99% of available resources? Cars are by far the most privileged form of transportation worldwide. We bend over backwards to subsidize them as much as possible at all costs.

So of course, any attempts at clawing back at least some of that privilege are met with outrage, e.g. bike lanes.

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

#145

Post by Mawr »

ferguess_k wrote: post #78
insane_dreamer wrote: post #19

Not sure it will make a difference to people's travel habits; I think those inclined to take public transport already do so. But it does highlight the fact that we subsidize private transport (our taxes pay for the roads, traffic police, etc.), so why not public transport?

What do you mean "subsidizing private transport"? I'm sorry but "your tax" also includes the tax paid by people who drive private cars. And since most public transit companies don't break even anyway (at least in Canada), it is the private drivers that are paying for the public.

> I'm sorry but "your tax" also includes the tax paid by people who drive private cars.

Look up what % of infrastructure costs that tax covers wherever it is you live.

Surprised? Now consider that the infrastructure is just a tiny % of the overall cost. What about the whole car and gas supply chains? What about the externalities of burning so much fossil fuel every day? What about the healthcare costs of having to treat natural consequences of sedentary lifestyles? What about the opportunity costs of the loss of life due to the above and simply due to traffic deaths and injuries?

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

#146

Post by baggy_trough »

Mawr wrote: post #144
baggy_trough wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would just propose that the transit advocates concentrate on that goal ("Mass transit can be just as good as cars for most people at far less cost") in one small area, because in most areas in the United States, it is currently extraordinarily far from reality. Also, they should do this without crippling cars, since that would be far easier to do than producing a compelling alternative to them as they currently exi…

> Also, they should do this without crippling cars, Do you mean without continuing to give them 99% of available resources? Cars are by far the most privileged form of transportation worldwide. We bend over backwards to subsidize them as much as possible at all costs. So of course, any attempts at clawing back at least some of that privilege are met with outrage, e.g. bike lanes.

99% of what resources? That sounds like quite an exaggeration.

I don't know if cars are subsidized more than mass transit on average. It's quite possible they are. The overwhelming majority of people find cars much more useful and enjoyable than mass transit, and politicians have to provide people with what they want to some degree. It's not a conspiracy of the oil companies.

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

#147

Post by abeppu »

baggy_trough wrote: post #121
abeppu wrote: 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

To be very clear, redlining didn't happen just because a bunch of individual bankers happened to be racist. It was a consequence of federal policy -- the FHA would insure loans in white neighborhoods but not in minority neighborhoods, so even for a rational banker uninterested in race, it made sense to issue the loans for white home buyers, and not minority home buyers, even if they were financially qualified. The "redline" choices were not where a bunch of separate banks had independently decided that some "bad risk" threshold was crossed -- they were picked by HOLC/FHA. The FHA also subsidized construction of white housing developments, but not minority ones.

When people refer to "systemic racism", the "systemic" part is typically literal.

Also, I invite you to take a step back and interrogate the examine the implicit premises of your question. I think you're saying that _in a free market of rational agents_, it doesn't make economic sense to not issue loans to people who _aren't_ credit risks, and I would agree -- except housing segregation was always about a heavily artificially manipulated (not free) market, in which people of color couldn't purchase a home in a white neighborhood regardless of their willingness to pay. Public policy bent over backwards to coerce all parties to maintain segregation (e.g. sundown towns, racial covenants, etc), ironically including during cold-war years when the US simultaneously tried to be a global advocate for free markets.

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

#148

Post by birn559 »

qcnguy wrote: post #107
IshKebab wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your public transport is so popular that it's becoming infeasible to fund it from car taxes... mission fucking accomplished! That is such a wild and nonsensical fear. "But what if it's too successful?!"

Eh no, that is an actual failure mode. Germany is experiencing it right now. What it means is everyone ends up being forced to use horribly broken public transport and it screws up everyone's business and personal lives. It is possible for public transport to be too popular. It looks like overloaded, crowded and constantly broken lines that can't get better because they're starved of funding.

Budget for German train system has been cut and was too low for two decades. It was well known that would result in what we have today.

You have to invest in infrastructure to keep it at a high quality level. It's crowded because it has been lacking proper funding for years. It's a result of politics, nothing stops public transport from being popular and providing reasonable high quality service.

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

#149

Post by birn559 »

qcnguy wrote: post #108
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You either spend the tax money on roads, or on public transit. Roads aren't free either.

Roads are much cheaper and more useful. They can be used for moving freight whereas good public transport keeps freight off the lines to avoid timetabling problems caused by blockage.

Rails can and are used to transport freight. Trucks contribute a lot to bad traffic and therefore the same kind of blockage you mentioned.

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

#150

Post by birn559 »

baggy_trough wrote: post #122
const_cast wrote: post #120

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.

A good reason for a SUV in a city is a pretty subjective matter so I don't think that alone is a good argument.
Post reply on HN