No one is going to willingly choose to take an hour to get somewhere that a car can reach in ten minutes. No one is going to willingly choose to stand out on a random corner in the snow, rain, cold, or extreme heat just to wait for a bus that might already be delayed, and whose environmental systems might be malfunctioning.
That’s the point of improving things, then it wouldn’t be like that. But the previous sentence you said it was a pointless endeavour so I’m not sure what your point is.
If you have bad public transport you can’t argue against making it good based on the fact that it’s bad now since if it was good then it would no longer be bad. I really don’t know what else to say.
They argued you cant make it better cause the improvements impact does not scale with costs. As an example they mentioned, implementing sidewalks would make walking safer, but cost ridiculous amounts of money that tax payers would have to fork over. Something they likely won’t do because costs will likely outweight the benefits for a lot of people
But the person is assuming the result would still be poor public transport. In a sense they’re right, spending a lot of money to still take “an hour to get somewhere that a car will reach in ten minutes” would not be worth it because that would be a failure, but assuming failure isn’t a reason to argue against it when lots of places do it well and benefit greatly from it. Reaching for an analogy, it’s a bit like saying we shouldn’t make an omelette because it’ll be raw if we don’t cook it and that would be a waste of money.
That’s the point of improving things, then it wouldn’t be like that. But the previous sentence you said it was a pointless endeavour so I’m not sure what your point is.
If you have bad public transport you can’t argue against making it good based on the fact that it’s bad now since if it was good then it would no longer be bad. I really don’t know what else to say.
They argued you cant make it better cause the improvements impact does not scale with costs. As an example they mentioned, implementing sidewalks would make walking safer, but cost ridiculous amounts of money that tax payers would have to fork over. Something they likely won’t do because costs will likely outweight the benefits for a lot of people
But the person is assuming the result would still be poor public transport. In a sense they’re right, spending a lot of money to still take “an hour to get somewhere that a car will reach in ten minutes” would not be worth it because that would be a failure, but assuming failure isn’t a reason to argue against it when lots of places do it well and benefit greatly from it. Reaching for an analogy, it’s a bit like saying we shouldn’t make an omelette because it’ll be raw if we don’t cook it and that would be a waste of money.