bluGill t1_jbap336 wrote

You hit the problem: if transit isn't useful you won't use it.

There are places where people use transit for more than to work trips: places where transit is useful for other trips.


bluGill t1_jb6k5dm wrote

Where is that 675 million going to come from? Whatever you answer, why not give them that, plus keep the 675million from fares and expand service. I guarantee most riders would prefer better service to zero cost fares.


bluGill t1_jb51i0a wrote

Service needs to be there first. If you cannot reasonably get where you want to go, when you want to be there, then cost isn't a consideration at all. If you have good transit (good means both frequent and coverage) we can talk about other considerations. There are very few places where making transit cheaper will attract more riders than investing in more/better service.


bluGill t1_jb4zxt5 wrote

Not in most places with transit. You can look up the budgets of US transit organizations, small town transit you are correct, but for anything bigger fares are significant sources of money (10% being significant).


bluGill t1_jb4vbva wrote

> layout of American cities is not suitable for good public transport. People often point out that it can be good in Europe, and it can, but you know where? In high density cities like Amsterdam or Prague or Paris or London

This is a half truth that is incorrectly used as an excuse to do nothing. All cities in the US have forms where there would be good support for transit if there was good transit, but since there isn't good transit people drive. There are apartments with high enough density but not transit all over, we need to serve them. There are through roads every mile or two, and thus within biking distance of most houses (if we figure out how to handle bikes on transit) It doesn't solve everything, but using bad form in some places as an excuse to not have transit anywhere is not good. And if you have good transit (and zoning allows) you can then build denser than current cities do.


bluGill t1_jb4ctu3 wrote

Free transit has been tried. It doesn't get very many more riders, and it means more money is meeded from someplace.

Service us what you need to attract riders. Build great service and they will come. Your car is always near and ready to leave when you want to go, most transit means adjusting from when you feel like going to the schedule: or you can buy a car. Many.times transit has convoluted routes to down town, so not only is the car a lot downtown, if your destination isn't downtown you can turn a 10 minute drive into over an hour: so a car is worth it for them savings.

The above is well known in transit circles, but not outside.


bluGill t1_jacxofp wrote

Ask your local building inspector. What they will pass or fail is always the first consideration. I'm in particular concerned about vapor barriers as what you described sounds wrong, but I'm probably just concerned. You do not want the problems of wrong vapor barriers down the road.

If the inspector will allow it I'd put insulation in these walls, but no more vapor barrier. It may not meet the letter of local code, but it should meet the intent so I think your inspector will allow it - but your inspector should know more than me, so if he describes reasons not to listen.


bluGill t1_j6nc7p7 wrote

I think just in time production is correct. However what we are missing is massive numbers of factories that can scale up production fast. (including their entire supply chain). That is a lot of factories that have the ability to produce 10,000 per day, but in reality only are turned on for a few hours every year to make sure everything still works.


bluGill t1_iy9pgj6 wrote

When a job goes from a grandfathered in allowed minor change to a major change requiring updating to the latest code is not well defined. In general I would expect that since it was already like that you are only making a minor change. However you would need input from a local inspector (or possibly a lawyer) to say for sure


bluGill t1_iy9og18 wrote

This is no longer allowed by code, but it used to be that instead of a neutral people would use the neutral as the switched hot side and no neutral would go to the switch at all. This saves some money, and copper is not cheap.

Hot and neutral go from the breaker to the outlet, the neutral wire is connected to the neutral size of the outlet. Hot is connected to a second wire that goes to the switch, then the neutral from that second line is connected to the other side of the switch and then to the hot side of the outlet. When doing this you were supposed to paint the white wire black (or red) so everyone knew it wasn't neutral, but often this wasn't done.

This is not connecting hot and neutral together. It is taking a wire that is normally used for neutral and using it for hot in a situation where the neutral wire wouldn't be used anyway.