LogFAQs > #975012615

adjl posted...

If they don't, take away their subsidy, charge them with fraud, and expropriate the company's assets to sell them to a company that will actually do what they're being paid to do.

Thats not always how it works. Rich people can afford good lawyers that help them keep most of their money, while using the least amount possible to keep their business afloat And they might even be able to get the people to keep paying a higher tax to keep the business afloat while keeping lost of the profit for themselves

adjl posted...

"Not fixing the roads" isn't a viable cost-saving strategy. If they aren't able to afford to fix them, that's going to become a massive problem in the next decade or so.

They dont seem to care much here Its already a problem, and they let it go on Its not a viable solution, but its the solution that saves them the most money That said, they still make it look like somebody it fixing it But they really arent

adjl posted...

The actual decision will indeed be some sort of middle ground, but that doesn't meant the priority can't be shifted away from focusing on cars at the expense of everything else at all times. Prioritizing a transit-oriented approach where it's viable to do so will yield better long-term results than prioritizing a car-oriented approach. Prioritizing a car-oriented approach where transit or other alternatives can't be made viable is the only option, so obviously that's what will be done in those cases.

Though, saying that, they can indeed stop expanding roads when transit takes some pressure off of the system. After all, there's no sense widening a road that's already never full, and having viable transit and other alternatives does reduce traffic volumes.

You can only shift priority away from cars if there is a reason to. If the amount of cars keep rising, where the amount of people that need a train dont, then they will keep focusing on cars. If the amount of both rise, then they will try to stay on both The only way they shift away from cars is if the amount drops, which it most likely wont I think most people value their time, as well So, going somewhere close, theyll probably drive. Same with family road trip. Going somewhere far, theyll probably still fly Itll mostly be use by some people who may want to go somewhere a couple hours away So, most people will probably still be on roads. Even if it doesnt rise as fast as normal, roads will probably still need expanding quite a bit

When not expanding roads to prioritize transit, thats basically trying to force people to use transit. And that can be bad if people cant use transit for what they need to do, or its much less efficient than driving That said, it also doesnt mean people will stop using cars and start using transit It just means theyre letting a problem get worse to try to force people to do what they want, which is going to cause a greater pushback And could essentially waste money making something better that doesnt need extra money at that current time And while I think having other options can reduce traffic, thats if enough people actually use them If not many more people are actually using those options, the it wont exactly help traffic at all

adjl posted...

It is false that every alternative to driving will always be worse, which is the philosophy that has guided American infrastructure investment for the last 60-odd years. Some people are in situations where driving is the only option (in cities, this is almost invariably because of poor design choices that favour cars at the expense of everything else), and they can be expected to keep driving. Whatever the personal circumstances that make driving necessary, though, the fact remains that single-occupant vehicles are one of the least efficient ways to move people around (leaving out obvious outliers like private jets). They should be treated as a last resort in cases where more efficient solutions aren't accessible, not the default, and in those cases it should be recognized that it's a matter of circumstances preventing them from accessing more efficient options instead of framing it as "driving is more efficient for them." It's only "more efficient" because no other options exist.

I dont think every alternative to driving is worse Though, I do think most will be Of course, the specifics matter And its only the least efficient of youre trying to count everyone as a whole. But people dont always care about everyone. People care about themselves. And in most cases, personal vehicles are the most efficient way to get them where they are going They need to get where they are going Thay said, there are many cases when its more efficient for cars like most people working on military installations or people just going out to grab something to eat (in certain cities based on the public transport they have, like in my city as an example) Or if anyone doesnt want to be out for long Most situations are based on the public transport in the area. Like in my area, we have 8 bus routes, each being an hour long, with one bus per route In most cases, thats way more inefficient than just driving somewhere, or driving somewhere and backEven with 15 and 30 minutes between each bus, it can be inefficient based on where youre going, what youre doing, and stuff Most people are going to use cars as a last resort since its more efficient, and gives you more freedom Why lose both efficiency and freedom for no reason?