Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

As a human living on earth, I don't actually much care what the 97% or 90% actually think about their commutes. Using transit instead of single-occupant cars is a huge improvement from an environmental and economic standpoint.



You should care because the real way to get people to use transit is by making it better than the alternative.


Or, you know, charging for the true externalities of owning a car like Denmark does.


The thing to remember whenever “better than the alternative” comes up is that transit is good where cars are bad and cars are good everywhere else. Transit is never going to beat out cars in environments where traffic is light, density is low, and parking is cheap. But traffic isn’t light and parking isn’t cheap where density is high.

This is about deciding which kind of city you want and building the transportation options that fit that environment. Cities built for cars are very different from cities built for density and walkability. You can’t compare the two modes devoid of that context.


Converting single occupant lanes to dedicated bus lanes would help, too. Prioritize vehicles carrying the most people.


Raising the price of gas helps too.


Not really, no.

Raising the price of gas negatively affects the working poor more than helps the environment. That subset of society may not live in an area accessible by transit, or their employment requires them to be in a different location than is feasible to travel to by transit.


> Raising the price of gas negatively affects the working poor more than helps the environment

In the short run. In the long run, the proceeds could be used to encourage the working poor to move to cities where they don't need a car. Given how financially terrible car ownership is for America's poor--between traffic tickets, civil forfeiture, police violence, predatory lending and collection practices, insurance practices, et cetera--I think it would be a net boon.


This is a horribly naive statement which disregards the existence many different jobs other than office and retail.


> disregards the existence many different jobs other than office and retail

Gas taxes can be raised in a way that is neutral to our working poor. It's a minor adjustment to the lowest tax bracket.


So what? Should the environment be subsidizing a benefit to the poor? We have better ways to help the poor than to let them trash our planet.


You can raise the Federal gas tax, and simultaneously lower the bottom tax rate from 10% to 0%.


Or from the other direction: not subsidizing automobile transportation.

If we funneled as much money to mass transit as we do to vehicle infrastructure, there'd be no competition.


Not everyone works in an office.


I agree except that often means to make car driving worse so transit seems better. Making transit actually better would be the key.


And the way to do that without discharging a loaded 12ga into the foot of the economy and everyone's quality of life is to make public transit better and more plentiful, not artificially raise the cost of private transit (which raises the cost of everything that depends on it). While the HN crowd had the economic stability to absorb an increased cost of private transit a huge chunk of the population would be negatively impacted in a way large enough to be worth avoiding. Carrots > sticks.


Not if we want to achieve aggressive climate goals.


That doesn’t address the point about people driving to the transit station. If someone is willing to tolerate driving their car one hour, adding a transit leg will just allow them to drive one hour while living slightly further from their office, which in isolation doesn’t help the environment.


As a human living on Earth, I don't actually care much what you think.

See how that feels?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: