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.
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.