Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonknee | Hacker News Reader

Well they actually do this in Seattle and it seems to work out. A fixed route is also not a bad thing (see bus rapid transit) and can encourage private development.

View on HN

See the last paragraph in my original. Fixed routes to have advantages, but only when/where you are sure they are very busy and will be for a long time. Most routes are not that sure in the modern world, so the flexibility advantages of non-fixed routes is important.

Of course part of the advantage of flexible routes is we assume car infrastructure is in place. While that isn't entirely desirable, it is reality: anyone fighting it directly is ignoring reality. Better to fight it indirectly which means making public transit better and better until people decide on their own to get rid of their car - only when few people use a car regularly can getting rid of roads be realistic.

Build it and they will come doesn't always work.

You can't ever really get rid of the roads, you can only downsize them. Even if everyone uses public transit, you need some way of transporting goods and cargo, and the only way currently of doing that within a municipality or to most final destinations is by truck. Whether you're moving a shipping container full of stuff to a retail store from the train terminal, or you're packing up someone's home and moving their furniture to a new apartment, it always goes by truck, and trucks need roads.

But if we could get rid of cars, we could make the roads a lot narrower.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com