←back to thread

491 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kr2 ◴[] No.43981051[source]
Chiming in from Los Angeles, USA to say wow, must be nice living in a modern society that prioritizes public transit and peoples' ease of movement. I know, I know, it comes with trade offs of living in an authoritarian state, but the absolute abysmal state of infrastructure in this country is maddening. Ever been on a train in Denmark or Japan or Switzerland?
replies(12): >>43981063 #>>43981084 #>>43981124 #>>43981133 #>>43981135 #>>43981202 #>>43981218 #>>43981220 #>>43981231 #>>43981261 #>>43981282 #>>43981492 #
jmcgough ◴[] No.43981133[source]
Truly the worst of both worlds that we now have authoritarianism without good public transit.
replies(1): >>43981297 #
chvid ◴[] No.43981297[source]
I don’t see what this has to do with authoritarianism. If anything it is an example of the opposite.
replies(1): >>43981318 #
sandworm101 ◴[] No.43981318[source]
Authoritarian regimes traditionally touted public transit. From "he made the trains run on time", the German autobahn (which actually predated a certain party) to the lavish halls of the Soviet subway stations, to China's highspeed rail networks, public transit is just a thing that strongmen like to do. And absolute power certainly helps when you want to plow a road/rail/bridge through a neighborhood.

I watched an in-flight documentary about the architecture of soviet rural bus stops. Each one of them looked like it cost most than the neighborhoods they serviced.

replies(5): >>43981339 #>>43981381 #>>43981399 #>>43981407 #>>43981779 #
chvid ◴[] No.43981339[source]
I just find this crazy - you can have good public infrastructure without be authoritarian.
replies(2): >>43981396 #>>43981437 #
1. sandworm101 ◴[] No.43981437[source]
Of course. Plenty of countries do. It is not that one requires the other. It is that when authoritarians came to power in the last century, many of them initiated lavish public transport projects.