5 ms·

"Poorer" countries with a per-capita GDP that's 1/5th of Bay Area have exceptional public transport. How about fix the country public transport first instead o

by ashayh 1y ago

"Poorer" countries with a per-capita GDP that's 1/5th of Bay Area have exceptional public transport. How about fix the country public transport first instead of spending 2 Trillion on BS AI?

oldpersonintx 1y ago
[dead]
sershe 1y ago
Very poor countries also have exceptional public water wells where people can draw water with buckets. That is because those are inconvenient, slow but necessary amenities in the areas where most people are poor. And that is why US currently doesn't need either. Source: lived in a poor country with exceptional public transit and didn't ever drive till 29; and carried water with buckets from a well only a block away for an aggregate of 1-2 years.
- estebank 1y ago
  Equating having access to public transport with lack of running water is wild to me. A rich country is not one where poor people drive but rather one where rich people take public transport.
  - sershe 1y ago
    I'm not doing that. I am equating on a spectrum not being able to, as a society, afford running water infrastructure to not being able to afford cars and infrastructure. Note that this includes environmental arguments - saying that 8bil people cannot all live like people in Houston may be true but it's basically saying we cannot afford to have nice things. But the thing is US, and especially major cities, currently can afford them! Why would "rich people take public transit"? Except for extremely dense areas, driving is faster especially accounting for overhead; goes exactly where one needs, any time; and is way more comfortable. Only those who prefer extremely dense areas and also cannot live close to work/amenities (kind of the point of density) would want it.
  - timewizard 1y ago
    > A rich country is not one where poor people drive but rather one where rich people take public transport. You've mixed a subjective measure "rich country" with an objective one "rich people." I can't think of any situation where people of greater means accept more limitations. Anyways do you have any examples of "rich countries" that have solved this problem?
    - danans 1y ago
      > Anyways do you have any examples of "rich countries" that have solved this problem? Rich countries that have good public transit? Sure, that's easy. Denmark Singapore Japan Germany Switzerland France UK ... Here are some middle income countries that have good public transit also: China Spain Portugal Italy Taiwan
      - timewizard 1y ago
        Okay, so to come back to the goal posts, do "rich people" ride the public transit in those countries?
        ahartmetz 1y ago
        They sure do. The ones that can't or don't want to hire a personal driver or go everywhere by taxi anyway. Because driving yourself isn't much fun in a city and you need to be sober every time, too.
        kelnos 1y ago
        I'm skeptical. For nearly any definition of "rich", someone can afford to take an Uber/Lyft/taxi everywhere, at least. I think the real reason your average rich person would take transit is because in some places, at some times of day, it's significantly faster than driving. But I do believe there's some -- probably fairly small -- subset of rich people who ride public transit simply because they prefer to.
        const_cast 1y ago
- Tactician_mark 1y ago
  But rich cities can also have great public transit. New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Singapore... in fact rich cities with transit as awful as the Bay Area seem to be the exception, not the rule
  - sershe 1y ago
    They are all much more dense than the bay area, and I don't get the sense that many people want them to be denser other than, again, for affordability reasons. I don't have data but in Moscow where I'm from the typical well to do thing was moving to a "cottage village", something between a suburb and a gated community, despite good transit and horrendous traffic. In the 90ies it was stereotyped as a nouveu riche thing but in 2010s I even knew a senior dev who did it as it became more affordable. When I was visiting Tokyo iirc most local devs I was working with lived in the city but their manager lived in an outlying less dense area, since presumably he could afford it). I get a sense that people are likely to move to have more space and privacy, unless it's locally difficult or expensive.
nashashmi 1y ago
New stuff is exciting. Old stuff is boring.

by ashayh 1y ago

"Poorer" countries with a per-capita GDP that's 1/5th of Bay Area have exceptional public transport. How about fix the country public transport first instead of spending 2 Trillion on BS AI?

oldpersonintx 1y ago

[dead]

sershe 1y ago

Very poor countries also have exceptional public water wells where people can draw water with buckets. That is because those are inconvenient, slow but necessary amenities in the areas where most people are poor. And that is why US currently doesn't need either. Source: lived in a poor country with exceptional public transit and didn't ever drive till 29; and carried water with buckets from a well only a block away for an aggregate of 1-2 years.

estebank 1y ago
Equating having access to public transport with lack of running water is wild to me. A rich country is not one where poor people drive but rather one where rich people take public transport.
- sershe 1y ago
  I'm not doing that. I am equating on a spectrum not being able to, as a society, afford running water infrastructure to not being able to afford cars and infrastructure. Note that this includes environmental arguments - saying that 8bil people cannot all live like people in Houston may be true but it's basically saying we cannot afford to have nice things. But the thing is US, and especially major cities, currently can afford them! Why would "rich people take public transit"? Except for extremely dense areas, driving is faster especially accounting for overhead; goes exactly where one needs, any time; and is way more comfortable. Only those who prefer extremely dense areas and also cannot live close to work/amenities (kind of the point of density) would want it.
- timewizard 1y ago
  > A rich country is not one where poor people drive but rather one where rich people take public transport. You've mixed a subjective measure "rich country" with an objective one "rich people." I can't think of any situation where people of greater means accept more limitations. Anyways do you have any examples of "rich countries" that have solved this problem?
  - danans 1y ago
    > Anyways do you have any examples of "rich countries" that have solved this problem? Rich countries that have good public transit? Sure, that's easy. Denmark Singapore Japan Germany Switzerland France UK ... Here are some middle income countries that have good public transit also: China Spain Portugal Italy Taiwan
    - timewizard 1y ago
      Okay, so to come back to the goal posts, do "rich people" ride the public transit in those countries?
      - ahartmetz 1y ago
        They sure do. The ones that can't or don't want to hire a personal driver or go everywhere by taxi anyway. Because driving yourself isn't much fun in a city and you need to be sober every time, too.
        kelnos 1y ago
        I'm skeptical. For nearly any definition of "rich", someone can afford to take an Uber/Lyft/taxi everywhere, at least. I think the real reason your average rich person would take transit is because in some places, at some times of day, it's significantly faster than driving. But I do believe there's some -- probably fairly small -- subset of rich people who ride public transit simply because they prefer to.
      - const_cast 1y ago
Tactician_mark 1y ago
But rich cities can also have great public transit. New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Singapore... in fact rich cities with transit as awful as the Bay Area seem to be the exception, not the rule
- sershe 1y ago
  They are all much more dense than the bay area, and I don't get the sense that many people want them to be denser other than, again, for affordability reasons. I don't have data but in Moscow where I'm from the typical well to do thing was moving to a "cottage village", something between a suburb and a gated community, despite good transit and horrendous traffic. In the 90ies it was stereotyped as a nouveu riche thing but in 2010s I even knew a senior dev who did it as it became more affordable. When I was visiting Tokyo iirc most local devs I was working with lived in the city but their manager lived in an outlying less dense area, since presumably he could afford it). I get a sense that people are likely to move to have more space and privacy, unless it's locally difficult or expensive.

nashashmi 1y ago

New stuff is exciting. Old stuff is boring.