Public Transport in Rural Areas

>>1077718
>publically funded cabs
Never have I seen a more retarded idea on this board. If you live in a rural area, you won't survive without a car. If you live in a small town or village, you can walk or cycle wherever you need to go.

Also, the no roads meme is a logical fallacy. Businesses are capable of building gigantic stores and towering high rise offices so they'd be willing to build roads so customers could get to their business.

I can actually thibk of a few places that only have population of thousands but public transport are available and cars are not needed. For instance, numerous settlements on Greenland, Pacific Ocean, Antarctica, Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, Far East Russia. Depend on how large and how remote the location exactly are, service they're getting can range from up to multidaily scheduled aircraft operation to down to annual ship visits. As all these mentioned locations have virtually no roads, cars are not needed.

File: fl-39890-volvo-7700-hybrid-faehrt-131277.jpg (230KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1200x800px

>>1077718
public transport in rural regions is certainly possible, its just very expensive. Having a bus that connecting your village of like 100 people to the next city every hour will get some people use public transportation, but probably not more than 10 a day. Some regions (think Switzerland or Liechtenstein) actually have the money to do this. You certainly can live in some places in these regions without a needing car.

>>1077719
>Also, the no roads meme is a logical fallacy. Businesses are capable of building gigantic stores and towering high rise offices so they'd be willing to build roads so customers could get to their business.
lol

>>1077718
>>1077719
Except the equivalent of publicly funded cabs already exists with demand response for disabled/seniors (and the general public for some areas), and publicly funded cabs do actually exist for the general public in the Philly suburbs to connect to commuter rail, and as part of guaranteed ride programs.

The main advantage of that type of service is you can go door to door without a car, and oftentimes quicker than it would be having one bus go on a giant loop with a million deviations that only ends up serving half the area anyways.


The main disadvantage is of course, you can't just get up and go, you have to call and plan specific round-trip times a day in advance, if not more.

Really which is better comes down to this >>1077961
It's better to have the cab/demand response system if the area isn't willing to fund a bus system that's more than just a long ass loop every hour from 9-3.

I guess to you city folks I live in a "rural" area but you won't find public transportation till your city has near 80-100k citizens. I never seen a bus in my town outside of the school picking up and dropping off children. I have never seen public transportation outside the largest city in my area. And this area covers a significant portion of my state.

File: flyover.jpg (76KB, 640x414px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 640x414px

>>1078394

>>1078394
>USA
wew

>>1078399
Apparently, you're only in a real place if there is a large Jewish community in it.

>>1078394
Many rural areas have paratransit which is basically a shared ride taxi. Some have restrictions on it needing to be for seniors/medical trips only but others have open reservations.

>>1077718
A car is always available.
A car is faster than a train or bus.
A car can carry cargo.
A car takes the route you want it to take.
A car can be used off-road.

There is no real alternative to a car in rural areas.

>>1078408
Yes goyim. Goys aren't real people.

>>1078441
Then I'd suggest having certain people work as drivers to shuttle other people around. You'd only need a handful of cars for a village of a few hundred where usually every single person would own a car.

File: uber.jpg (201KB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 620x412px

>>1077718
>publically funded cabs
what is uber pool?

>>1079153
To achieve the utilization rate that make private services like uber viable, time needed from calling them to they arriving in small vollages could be long...

>>1077718
In mexico there are bus lines that go trough villages in rural areas, they arent regular buses but coaches, they're concessions from thr government and theyre pretty cheap for all the distance they go through

Im pretty sure a commuter train would be far superior but it would be very expensive for just a bunch of indians and farmers, maybe if the line connected two major cities

>>1079619
>they arent regular buses but coaches
Can you explain the difference to me like I'm five years old? I always thought those were synonyms

>>1079677
Well a regular bus is lighter and smaller, their seats are more utilitarian (plastic ones, sometimes with some foam) and they dont have space for luggage. Coaches are the ones you take for long rides, theyre bigger (usually three axis) with space designed for luggage, thus comfier, their seats are made out of metal and fabric and they even have AC and lights

>>1077718
this fucking ancap road meme makes me so angry. The current state of government road building is so fucked that private or at least priced roads are the only solution

right now its

>hmmm lets build a asphalt road in the middle of bumfuck nowhere and maintain it year round through the snow and rain at extreme cost to taxpayers, even though its used by a family of dirt farmers twice a year
>hmmm this road in our busiest city is completely congested, and its not possible to expand it. Lets make it completely free and make these chumps sit in congestion, clogging useful commerce and activity
>hmmm this urban freeway is congested thanks to lack of market mechanisms, why dont we just demolish economically productive areas to build more highways that will instantly be filled, since they just induce more demand and have a fraction of the capacity of a rail line
>hmmm a large portion of our taxpayers don't drive, but lets charge everyone to build roads so that subsidized people can drive their portable cages at a fraction of a cost that it rightfully should in a market, thereby absolutely fucking our chances of having a competitive transit system
>hmmm... this developer wants to build a subdivision out in the middle of nowhere, bringing in more property tax? and all we have to do is pay for road maintenance in perpetuity, even if it ends up being a net loss for the city and taxpayers? Sounds great

everyone on /n/ should be in favor of road pricing for cars

>>1079874
Thanks
>>1079930
I totally agree that car users should pay for the damage they do to society. It was found in a 2015 study that every kilometer travelled by car costs society 16 cents, while every km travelled by bike provides 15 cents, factoring in fuel, pollution, health effects etc.
I believe all cities above roughly 100 000 inhabitants can be virtually car-free, the only cars being buses, delivery vehicles for stores, cabs ferrying around disabled people and moving vans.
Infrastructure in rural areas is very important to keep chances equal between the city and the countryside. I support building and maintaining roads and railroads in rural areas. Much less people need them, that is true, but people still need them. I recommend watching this video, it's pretty well put together.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA

>>1079959
>provide roads for people living in the countryside

why should people living more efficiently in cities have to subsidize their wasteful lifestyle?

>>1080087
Freedom. At some point, cities get so crowded that people flocking there doesn't make anything more effective

>>1080097
No, density is pretty much always more efficient than sprawl. If you want to have 40 acres and a mule, that's fine, but you should pay for it yourself.

>>1080087
Rural not just random country side. There are tons of primary industries needing lots of space to operate

>>1080106
Then those industries can build the roads they need together. It'd still be much cheaper for them to get cheap land from rural areas for their industrial complexes and build roads/railroads/harbor to transport their goods in and out of the factory.

>>1080112
And farmers and hunters? How about isolated independent locations that government want better control and access to?

>>1080116
Farmers would form companies/co-ops to build and maintain the roads between their farms and to wherever needed to deliver their produce.

Hunters would use the existing roads by farmers and/or whoever owns the lands they're hunting on as the owners still need to be able to move around their lands to maintain them, an unmaintained forest isn't nearly as profitable as a maintained one. Alternatively they could fly into their hunting grounds if they're going further away. The final stretches would be done on a quad/snowmobile. The roads hunters would be using would be narrow forest roads but that's more than enough for them. The hunters could either join the company/co-op that maintains the roads or pay directly for the usage to whoever owns the roads if they change hunting grounds often.

Obviously the costs of maintaining roads would be reflected in the prices of produce. But maintaining gravel roads is fairly cheap and simple and you don't really need anything more around a farm or in a forest where everyone will be moving on off-road capable vehicles anyway.

Who owns the land government wants access to? If it's the government's land they're free to build a road there if they see it necessary. If it's a forest they can sell logs to build and maintain the roads. If it's farmland they can rent the land to a local farmer or cultivate the land themselves. They can sell hunting rights to hunters to their land and access to the roads in order gain money to maintain the roads. Strategic location for defense of the country? Defense budget obviously.

>>1080143
How about lands in natural reserve or lands that are not owned by anyone and also connections to them?

And government building roads wherever they see necessary is exactly what government is doing, and since charging for production is so complicated they simplified the idea by using something called taxation

File: Imagen_071.jpg (41KB, 485x363px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 485x363px

>>1079619
yea that's true i hadn't thought about all those buses in the developing world, even though i've spent many hours on them.

they are crude and slow but cheap, and stop at every little village between origin and destination. they are absolutely essential transportation infrastructure across much of the developing world, but they aren't public, per se, in most places i've been. they are privately run.

but they operate in very different economic structures than would be in the industrialized world. light regulatory environments, which maybe helps keep them cheap but also likely contributes to the non-trivial number of buses that plunge off cliffs or otherwise turn into homicidal balls of flame and kill all their passengers. also, the demand is higher in these areas because private auto ownership is beyond the means of most rural folks, so people take the slow buses. this means that there is a critical mass of customers to keep prices affordable and to make for frequent enough schedules that they are actually usable.

tl;dr: cheap functioning bus service exists in the rural developing world but we are probably too wealthy and expect too much safety to make it happen in the developing world without significant public subsidies (which might make sense in some cases, if shared mobility is considered a public good)

>>1077719
>Never have I seen a more retarded idea on this board.
My town does this for seniors

File: Taos-Mountain-Snow-7004.jpg (461KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1000x667px

>>1080098
listen, as a planning scholar, i'm all for density and you are of course right about the social/economic/ecological efficiency of cities, but you're forgetting that somebody still has to grow the corn for our jonnycakes and bourbon. sure, not many people are involved in industrialized agriculture any longer, but this is also a problem, considering how massively disastrous these agricultural practices have been for the health of our bodies and the planet.

even if you're not convinced of the freedom argument, which i think is, at best, complicated, you must still admit that for some social functions, we require folks to live in low density rural areas.

finally, i want somebody to run the motel and bar out in the mountains for me when i'm done skiing/hiking/floating the river. those peeps gotta have a reasonable quality of life too so we all can enjoy the wide open spaces.

>>1080187
>lands not owned by anyone
Who would then need a road to there?

>natural reserve
It's the responsibility of anyone who owns the land.

>connections
You'd obviously connect your road to all the other privately maintained roads forming a road network. You might have/want to join their road company/co-op when you're connecting your road to an existing network.

>charging for production is complicated
>taxes aren't complicated
Nigga what? Charging for production is dead simple. You just factor in all the costs incurred to manufacture something and then add desired profit margin on top of that and that's your price. If you can't do that then your business deserves to go bankrupt. Meanwhile taxation is a clusterfuck of rules in most places.

What the government is doing is building almost all the roads now. In this scenario the government wouldn't give a fuck about building roads unless it's on their own land and the government needs the road to access some location. Also there wouldn't even be a government in an ancap society and the government on a monarchist society wouldn't provably own much land so their need to build and maintain roads would be minimal.

>>1080259
>No one would use land that's not owned by anyone
>Land of natural reserve being owned by anyone
>An universal taxation is more complex than charging for production
what, are you proposing some form of Anarcho-capitalism society?

File: 1494273796307.jpg (112KB, 750x1020px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 750x1020px

>>1080267
>implying the lands on natural reserves aren't owned by someone
>implying companies already don't charge for production
I'd ideally have a minarchist society but I wouldn't complain about an ancap one.

>>1079619
> Im pretty sure a commuter train would be far superior
On this there will never be enough demand on the way for transit to serve such a linear corridor between two cities or towns, unless you are close to a service through a highway and there are bus stops along the route,

File: images.jpg (36KB, 556x256px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 556x256px

>>1080316
Well thats how it works in Mexico City metro area, there are coaches or collective taxis that connect popular dormitory towns with nearby metro stations, we even have an actual commuter train but it runs through the industrial corridor and those towns are somewhat dense, the local goverment is replacing these buses and taxis with BRT lines

Pic related, the commuter train

>>1080259
>the government on a monarchist society wouldn't provably own much land so their need to build and maintain roads would be minimal.
The crown owns ALL the land man

>>1080637
Yes, but they enfeoff the land to dukes, counts, knights and peasants to work on. Those are the ones who'll be doing all the work building roads.

>>1080287
Which country on earth ha e their natural reserve or other similar lands owned by someone?

>>1080318
> Mexico City
> rural area
First you have to be close to such a dense metropolitan area...
We are talking about places where the closest urban center is a town or even a village, not a big city.

>>1080637
It was supposed to be a minarchist desu. Though as >>1080644 said the crown wouldn't necessarily be doing any of the road building.

>>1080647
All of them. It's either private land where someone has set up a natural reserve or the government owns the land and have it set up as a natural reserve.

>>1079087
I have seen something like this. You have a number of drivers who for a given route each do one run per day, but are otherwise available for hire, usually to haul a grocery run or some other kind of bulk goods run.

>>1077718
>It seems like the less densely populated an area is, the more necessary it becomes to own a car.
>Is this actually true?
No shit it's true, Einstein