Hacker News Reader

Comment by m-schuetz | Hacker News Reader

Public transport just serves as an excuse to argue against car-free policies. Public transport can never be good enough to cover any rural alley cost-effectively. It also does not need to, cities don't need to justify makong themselves more livable to their citizens, at the cost of commuters who only see the city as a parking lot and roads.

View on HN

The solution is simple. Just build big parking lots outside the city where land is cheap, and a bus service from these parking lots to the inner city. That way commuters can get to their workplace and back fast enough.

Making commuting viable that way is beneficial to inner-city folk too. When people who want to live further away from city can do it effectively, housing will become cheaper for those who actually want to live in the city.

It works great when done well but generally the people with expensive inner suburb real estate typically fight tooth and nail to prevent that.

Anyone care to give a detailed argument for this position. Whenever I'm buying/renting a place in the city I always check its proximity to subway/train/bus stops and how frequently those vehicles stop by. That's even when I have a car. So the solution would seem to be build out inner suburb public transportation out at the same time or beforehand so there's less inner suburb real estate people fighting it? Yeah easier said than done, but it's still worth it to eliminate kneejerk opposition when you can.

I've always argued - given the tech we have - that one's municipal rates and taxes should include a public transport rebate.

Say the first €x /month,year is free, thereafter you pay as normal.

Use it or lose it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com