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

161–170 of 181 posts

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

#161

Post by bluGill »

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…

Most who look like transit advocates in reality are not . They appear to be for transit but they want something else and don't care about transit.

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

#162

Post by somecontext »

const_cast wrote: post #116
IshKebab wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most families in NYC do not need to own a car, and in fact most don't. But even then we have to consider marginal costs. Owning one car is better than two or three. Here in Texas, it's not uncommon to see households with 4 or 5 cars. That's expensive.

According to this graphic https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-L... 57.3% of children (0--18yo) are in a household with a car. There's a weighting issue here, but I'd still bet that most families in NYC have a car.

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

#163

Post by 1718627440 »

tzs wrote: post #151
qcnguy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because women themselves voted against it. Which is actually the history of the female franchise everywhere. The suffragettes were reduced to bombing campaigns because fellow women did not agree that women should be allowed to vote. In the UK it was only WW1 that changed things. Maybe in the UK female franchise would also have been much delayed if not for the huge social upheavals caused by the world wars.

> That's because women themselves voted against it That's rather confusing. If women didn't have the right to vote, how would they be able to vote on the question of whether or not to grant women the right to vote?

Public opinion and newspaper influence. I think the idea that any policy is about a male/female divide is wrong. I also think, that women in the past having no influence on politics only because they weren't putting their name on documents, is flawed.

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

#164

Post by 1718627440 »

Avicebron wrote: post #69
dkiebd wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely reject the notion that direct democracy is bad because Politicians Know Better. It’s borderline if not completely authoritarian and frankly disgusting. Maybe consider that Switzerland is one of the best if not the best country in the world because people can choose what they want it to be.

This issue with direct democracies is that the they can get out of hand pretty fast unless your population is somewhat homogenous and reasonable. Aka Switzerland. If you're too young to remember twitch plays Pokémon, that's direct democracy and it was wild. A direct democracy could decide tomorrow that we wanted to fuck China sideways with nukes because it's funny and based all because a tiktok went viral.

I think people rule differently depending on how much impact it has. People claiming "We should nuke them" knowing it will never happen is very different from them really deciding on that matter.

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

#165

Post by IshKebab »

Mawr wrote: post #143
IshKebab wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not only the mileage. Age is very important too. Look at any car advert - it's the age that is highlighted first. Mileage only if it is unusually low.

Many components degrade simply due to time, especially things like rubber seals.

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

#166

Post by ferguess_k »

Mawr wrote: post #145
ferguess_k wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

OP is not complaining about how much the tax covers, but who (people who drive and who don't) pays what percentage.

> we subsidize private transport (our taxes pay for the roads, traffic police, etc.)

My point is: this "we" includes all those drivers too. That is, whatever the $$ that gets paid into maintaining the infra, it comes from "we", which include the drivers. And since the non-drivers also need private companies/drivers to move things around, they are also part of the story. They do not subsidize anything.

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

#167

Post by const_cast »

somecontext wrote: post #162
const_cast wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most families in NYC do not need to own a car, and in fact most don't. But even then we have to consider marginal costs. Owning one car is better than two or three. Here in Texas, it's not uncommon to see households with 4 or 5 cars. That's expensive.

According to this graphic https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-L... 57.3% of children (0--18yo) are in a household with a car. There's a weighting issue here, but I'd still bet that most families in NYC have a car.

Well 57% is most, although that doesn't account for having multiple kids in one household.

Either way it's close, and the closer you get to Manhattan the higher that number goes. Remember, there are over 8 million people in NYC, and over 12 million during the work day.

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

#168

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mvieira38 wrote: post #10

Public transportation should always be free in cities, with car commuters paying the operation costs. Not saying it can be implemented right away, but it should be a policy goal for cities. You have all the right in the world to prefer driving and chilling on your air conditioning and stereo if you can afford it, but it shouldn't be free if you're occupying the lane space 10 people would occupy in a bus, and making t…

I used public transportation less when it was free here in Seattle because it felt less safe. The buses have improved a lot since Seattle started enforcing fare collection again, and a few dollars isn’t much compared to not getting stabbed by some drug addict having a fent crisis.

Switzerland is different though: you know the police aren’t going to put up with crap at all (and they will arrive fairly quickly if there is an incident), so free could really work. Although I was never tempted to drive while living in Switzerland (in the next city over from Geneva). I don’t think free works in the USA however.

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

#169

Post by MangoToupe »

1718627440 wrote: post #159
MangoToupe wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and I'm just saying there's the rational impulse to tax cars to death and then enjoy the fruits of a mass transit network. The way we have things set up now doesn't make any sense to begin with—almost like we're taxing our economic centers for existing.

> we're taxing our economic centers for existing. Yes. Economic centers need transport. Transport costs money to operate, so it is an external cost for an economic center. Taxes are a ways to price in external costs.

> Transport costs money to operate, so it is an external cost for an economic center

Only by choice! Hence why america has such inefficient transit even compared to other such-dense metros.

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

#170

Post by 1718627440 »

MangoToupe wrote: post #169
1718627440 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're taxing our economic centers for existing. Yes. Economic centers need transport. Transport costs money to operate, so it is an external cost for an economic center. Taxes are a ways to price in external costs.

> Transport costs money to operate, so it is an external cost for an economic center Only by choice! Hence why america has such inefficient transit even compared to other such-dense metros.

Sorry what is the choice here? That transport costs money? That transport is needed by an economic center?
Post reply on HN