←back to thread

491 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
softgrow ◴[] No.43981034[source]
I'm glad that Shanghai has moved to the next level in public transportation in meeting customer demand. Most cities don't have the funds to buy smallish buses and labour available as drivers. They don't have the money or willpower to get frequencies to turn up and go levels (ie frequent) and leave people with long walks to widely spaced routes.
replies(1): >>43981056 #
cryptoz ◴[] No.43981056[source]
The actual money can’t be the issue. It’s $136 for failure to stop at a stop sign in WA. If they enforced that for 30 seconds per day the cities would be wealthy beyond belief.

Or maybe not-but we’d have much safer traffic! Thus enabling revenue from fewer deaths.

But I digress- the problem with “revenue” for cities is they actively avoid getting it. If they actually wanted or desired more funds for the city, simply enforcing laws is all that is needed. It’s just not desired to have revenue I suppose, if it means enforcing laws and collecting dues owed.

Yes yes I’m probably being “unrealistic” but honestly? Maybe not.

replies(3): >>43981100 #>>43981679 #>>43981719 #
1. moooo99 ◴[] No.43981100[source]
Law enforcement should not be a primary mean of funding for anything, as this creates a plethora of perverse incentives for lawmakers.

That does not mean law enforcement is bad or unnecessary. It just means that law enforcements primary purpose should be to keep people safe and educate, not to fund the districts