297
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf to c/fuck_cars@lemmy.ml

Even if you think what you would say is obvious, please add. This is genuinely something I think makes sense regarding local bus routes given the longevity of light rail and how infrequently routes change, but I also suffer from confirmation bias, so I'm hoping for reasons this would be a terrible idea but obviously would prefer reasons it would be an even more amazing idea than I thought.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Julian_1_2_3_4_5@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

It's more reliable, usually runs on electric rather than buses, can run more frequent without causing congestion.

Only real con is that you need some time, money and maybe more space to add it

[-] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago

But isn't it a case that our governments keep pushing austerity and thus our infrastructure doesn't improve thus do things like run shitty services. The outlay is more expensive, but no one has ever said a light railway doesn't pay for itself.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 10 points 1 year ago

no one has ever said a light railway doesn't pay for itself.

Most metro rail systems lose money. They cost more to operate than they generate in fare revenue.

This is OK because they provide a useful public service and should be funded by tax dollars. Light rail should not be expected to turn a profit. It should be expected to benefit the community it serves, which it generally does.

[-] azimir@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I want to know when the cars on the roads will have to turn a profit on a per-trip basis. People seem to demand that public transit be profitable for some insane reason, but in general never ask the cars pay their own way around town.

Both the roads and mass transit are services, just like the post office and the military. They're costs of having civilization, not some kind of business enterprise the government is undertaking.

[-] MrLee@aus.social 3 points 1 year ago

@azimir @NaibofTabr
Has anyone done a true cost analysis of cars?
All the external costs incling health, environment, climate change, Middle East Wars, Police...
#Urbanism #Traffication

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

Heh, well, if the petroleum industry and the development of automobiles ends up destroying the environment, then the cost-benefit analysis would seem to be moot.

[-] azimir@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

That I don't know, but I assume there's at least a few models doing that calculation. It's hard to be accurate as your impact scale goes outward, but I can assure you it's not going to look good for gas powered cars on the global scale calculations. They're really hard on the planet and the people around them.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago

Both the roads and mass transit are services, just like the post office and the military. They're costs of having civilization, not some kind of business enterprise the government is undertaking.

Kind of depends on how you look at it... If you consider that the government's ultimate goal is to grow the economy so that it can collect more tax revenue, then the entire country is the government's enterprise. Improving the enterprise's infrastructure would seem like an obviously beneficial expenditure.

It's more abstract, but the real question is whether spending more tax money on mass transit would benefit society more than if the money were spent on something else.

[-] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 2 points 1 year ago

Don't they have light rail in India that has been running for like 50 years?

[-] Julian_1_2_3_4_5@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Yep, yet another reason for more light rail

this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2023
297 points (95.4% liked)

Fuck Cars

9887 readers
4 users here now

This community exists as a sister community/copycat community to the r/fuckcars subreddit.

This community exists for the following reasons:

You can find the Matrix chat room for this community here.

Rules

  1. Be nice to each other. Being aggressive or inflammatory towards other users will get you banned. Name calling or obvious trolling falls under that. Hate cars, hate the system, but not people. While some drivers definitely deserve some hate, most of them didn't choose car-centric life out of free will.

  2. No bigotry or hate. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, homophobia, chauvinism, fat-shaming, body-shaming, stigmatization of people experiencing homeless or substance users, etc. are not tolerated. Don't use slurs. You can laugh at someone's fragile masculinity without associating it with their body. The correlation between car-culture and body weight is not an excuse for fat-shaming.

  3. Stay on-topic. Submissions should be on-topic to the externalities of car culture in urban development and communities globally. Posting about alternatives to cars and car culture is fine. Don't post literal car fucking.

  4. No traffic violence. Do not post depictions of traffic violence. NSFW or NSFL posts are not allowed. Gawking at crashes is not allowed. Be respectful to people who are a victim of traffic violence or otherwise traumatized by it. News articles about crashes and statistics about traffic violence are allowed. Glorifying traffic violence will get you banned.

  5. No reposts. Before sharing, check if your post isn't a repost. Reposts that add something new are fine. Reposts that are sharing content from somewhere else are fine too.

  6. No misinformation. Masks and vaccines save lives during a pandemic, climate change is real and anthropogenic - and denial of these and other established facts will get you banned. False or highly speculative titles will get your post deleted.

  7. No harassment. Posts that (may) cause harassment, dogpiling or brigading, intentionally or not, will be removed. Please do not post screenshots containing uncensored usernames. Actual harassment, dogpiling or brigading is a bannable offence.

Please report posts and comments that violate our rules.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS