statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
City-Go-Round
- Thread starter statler
- Start date
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Ultimately, wouldn't it be cheaper for most people to pay a small tax for the installation of displays for this kind of info than effectively force everyone to buy an iPhone or else wait in the cold? Or are authorities just banking on everyone eventually having an iPhone anyway?
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 65
And trust the MBTA to develop user friendly code, and to maintain these displays reliably?
Everyone will have the mobile internet in 3-5 years just like wireless home/office networks are now universal. People trade in their phones after 2 years... maybe not everyone trading in this year will get a netphone, but you can be sure that their next trade-in after this will likely be a netphone -especially as they come down in price, and especially also as app development booms, making the mobile internet an indispensable convenience.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 65
I disagree that wireless internet is only in middle class homes or above. 3-5 years ago you had to ask at nice hotels whether they had wireless. Today even the most decrepit independent roadside motels typically offer wifi.
Also, why aren't people entitled to this information? So long as the technology exists, and so long as bus schedules don't coincide with reality, taxpayers and fare-paying transit riders are entitled to know when their bus will come.
Also, why aren't people entitled to this information? So long as the technology exists, and so long as bus schedules don't coincide with reality, taxpayers and fare-paying transit riders are entitled to know when their bus will come.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Yeah, we're talking about the bus-taking population. Believe it or not there are a lot of people who can't afford mobile plans, let alone ones that include mobile internet. And if they can't afford basic service now, they're not going to be able to afford whatever becomes basic service down the line.
There's a reason they don't just let people look at, say, commuter rail schedules online, even though there's a huge cost involved in printing them all out and distributing them. Even if the T sold commuter rail schedules, the money would at least be cycled back to the T and not to AT&T. Information about public transit should be free to all, not just the people carrying the latest digital toy. The way the technology curve goes, even if everyone has mobile internet ten years down the line, the upper middle class will be chattering about how much easier it is to use transit with augmented reality-capable devices. It goes on and on.
There's a reason they don't just let people look at, say, commuter rail schedules online, even though there's a huge cost involved in printing them all out and distributing them. Even if the T sold commuter rail schedules, the money would at least be cycled back to the T and not to AT&T. Information about public transit should be free to all, not just the people carrying the latest digital toy. The way the technology curve goes, even if everyone has mobile internet ten years down the line, the upper middle class will be chattering about how much easier it is to use transit with augmented reality-capable devices. It goes on and on.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 65
I realize this isn't the most earth-shattering debate, but I still disagree with you in a number of ways.
What's considered basic service today will be standard provision in the near future. True they won't be able to afford the fanciest service or gadget. But if the apps that work with standard provision service (and remember, the incentive for apps is to work broadly) then the transit experience is improved for everyone, not just ones with the fanciest gadgets and service.
Whaa? Commuter rail schedules are online. I'm also not against printing out schedules. I don't see how this is relevant.
But the T doesn't sell paper schedules. Aside from the obvious fact that nobody would buy them, printing is a costly process. So what's the problem with releasing data online? Why should the T be wary of "cycling money" to AT&T or apps developers if it improves the transit experience? This isn't a zero-sum game. Apps developers, AT&T, google, etc can all make money... AND the T can see its experience improved. A mutually-beneficial ecosystem that benefits riders in the end.
This is your strangest argument. Before even tackling the technology curve, I have to wonder why you would be against making transit easier for upper middle class people. Like it or not, these are the people who routinely bring their cars with them everywhere they go even when there are viable bus and subway routes. I think there are good "stick" solutions - congestion pricing, market-priced street parking - but also good "carrot" solutions to lure people out of their cars such as improved transit experiences and better usability.
In terms of the technology curve, allow me to play devil's advocate in a non-PC way by saying "poor people need rich people to buy new technology first if they eventually want to afford it." It's not just poor vs rich... I may not be poor but I do think that anyone who lines up at 4am to pay full price for an apple product that will be obsolete next year is a frivolous moron. But god bless them for it: if not for the early adopters, I'd never have my $99 iPhone.
Rich people will always have better technology - just like they will always on average drive better cars, live in more expensive homes, eat at more expensive restaurants and be more likely to buy organic tempe at Whole Foods. But unlike tax breaks for the wealthy, upper middle class technology adoption DOES have trickle-down benefits for all - and quite rapidly too.
What's considered basic service today will be standard provision in the near future. True they won't be able to afford the fanciest service or gadget. But if the apps that work with standard provision service (and remember, the incentive for apps is to work broadly) then the transit experience is improved for everyone, not just ones with the fanciest gadgets and service.
Whaa? Commuter rail schedules are online. I'm also not against printing out schedules. I don't see how this is relevant.
But the T doesn't sell paper schedules. Aside from the obvious fact that nobody would buy them, printing is a costly process. So what's the problem with releasing data online? Why should the T be wary of "cycling money" to AT&T or apps developers if it improves the transit experience? This isn't a zero-sum game. Apps developers, AT&T, google, etc can all make money... AND the T can see its experience improved. A mutually-beneficial ecosystem that benefits riders in the end.
This is your strangest argument. Before even tackling the technology curve, I have to wonder why you would be against making transit easier for upper middle class people. Like it or not, these are the people who routinely bring their cars with them everywhere they go even when there are viable bus and subway routes. I think there are good "stick" solutions - congestion pricing, market-priced street parking - but also good "carrot" solutions to lure people out of their cars such as improved transit experiences and better usability.
In terms of the technology curve, allow me to play devil's advocate in a non-PC way by saying "poor people need rich people to buy new technology first if they eventually want to afford it." It's not just poor vs rich... I may not be poor but I do think that anyone who lines up at 4am to pay full price for an apple product that will be obsolete next year is a frivolous moron. But god bless them for it: if not for the early adopters, I'd never have my $99 iPhone.
Rich people will always have better technology - just like they will always on average drive better cars, live in more expensive homes, eat at more expensive restaurants and be more likely to buy organic tempe at Whole Foods. But unlike tax breaks for the wealthy, upper middle class technology adoption DOES have trickle-down benefits for all - and quite rapidly too.
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Let me try and make my argument from before clearer. The T already does print our paper schedules for the commuter rail - thousands. For free. It doesn't have to. It could do one or both of the following:
1. Sell the paper schedules to recoup the cost of printing them or even profit from it
2. Abandon printing schedules and tell people to look online for data
But both of these would have differential effects on the poor. They would be forced to either spend money for paper schedules, or would lack the mobile technology to look up schedules on the web. The T realizes this, and has not implemented either of these potential cost-cutting moves.
So if the T is okay with spending tons of money to provide scheduling information in the form of free pamphlets, why not do so to provide publicly available information about the locations of trains and buses systemwide? Its solution instead is to outsource this to companies which have developed apps. But this is even more discriminatory than the T would be if it abandoned free paper schedules in favor of web access, because it goes beyond wireless access to require a special phone.
No, it is not mutually exclusive for the T to provide public information and allow developers to create apps for phones. But the T is not doing this, and does not plan to. They want the private sector to take care of the burden for them, and the private sector is doing so in a way that excludes a significant portion of the system's ridership.
Yes, there is a net benefit, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be more equally shared.
Yes, there is good reason to provide this technology for the middle class to incentivize transit use. Again, I'm not arguing against that. I'm not trying to be Handicapper General.
Yes, there will be a trickle down effect. But it will be slow, and the wealthy will always be ahead of the curve in some way.
Public transit it a public utility. We shouldn't be creating two classes of rider - one that knows when the train/bus is coming, and another that has to stand out in the cold/rain/snow wondering about it. Society gains more from the efficiency of the masses being able to take advantage of the savings in time, misery, and frustration.
So my suggestion is that these apps shouldn't be allowed to roll out without some kind of linkage to provide real-time info in publicly accessible locations to anyone using the transit system. You could require the app developers to pay into it, or fund it through some kind of advertising/sponsorship. iPhone users will still have incentives to download the app, since they can see it anywhere. But at least the poor RMV employee who doesn't have a BlackBerry will have less reason to get surly on your ass because she didn't know if she had enough time to get coffee or had to stand in a blizzard while waiting for the bus.
1. Sell the paper schedules to recoup the cost of printing them or even profit from it
2. Abandon printing schedules and tell people to look online for data
But both of these would have differential effects on the poor. They would be forced to either spend money for paper schedules, or would lack the mobile technology to look up schedules on the web. The T realizes this, and has not implemented either of these potential cost-cutting moves.
So if the T is okay with spending tons of money to provide scheduling information in the form of free pamphlets, why not do so to provide publicly available information about the locations of trains and buses systemwide? Its solution instead is to outsource this to companies which have developed apps. But this is even more discriminatory than the T would be if it abandoned free paper schedules in favor of web access, because it goes beyond wireless access to require a special phone.
No, it is not mutually exclusive for the T to provide public information and allow developers to create apps for phones. But the T is not doing this, and does not plan to. They want the private sector to take care of the burden for them, and the private sector is doing so in a way that excludes a significant portion of the system's ridership.
Yes, there is a net benefit, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be more equally shared.
Yes, there is good reason to provide this technology for the middle class to incentivize transit use. Again, I'm not arguing against that. I'm not trying to be Handicapper General.
Yes, there will be a trickle down effect. But it will be slow, and the wealthy will always be ahead of the curve in some way.
Public transit it a public utility. We shouldn't be creating two classes of rider - one that knows when the train/bus is coming, and another that has to stand out in the cold/rain/snow wondering about it. Society gains more from the efficiency of the masses being able to take advantage of the savings in time, misery, and frustration.
So my suggestion is that these apps shouldn't be allowed to roll out without some kind of linkage to provide real-time info in publicly accessible locations to anyone using the transit system. You could require the app developers to pay into it, or fund it through some kind of advertising/sponsorship. iPhone users will still have incentives to download the app, since they can see it anywhere. But at least the poor RMV employee who doesn't have a BlackBerry will have less reason to get surly on your ass because she didn't know if she had enough time to get coffee or had to stand in a blizzard while waiting for the bus.
statler
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 7,908
- Reaction score
- 496
While I agree with the bulk of your post I would just point out that schedule are a necessity whereas real-time data is merely a convenience. We are able to utilize the T fine today without it. Poor (and cheap) people will still be able to continue to use the T without access to this data.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 65
I still don't understand what you want the MBTA to do, then. Give everyone a real-time bus radar through an LCD screen on the back of CharlieCards? Or little beepers that chirp wildly when a bus is approaching? If you mean real-time bus info on public displays, clearly that's infeasible to do for each and every bus stop in the system.
The T isn't passing the buck here. They've been extremely proactive in making the transit data available to the public, which in itself is commendable. While middle-class people might use the resulting apps first, this won't in the long run create two classes of riders. As I've argued, technology trickle-down is often rapid and relies on first adopters (who are often middle class or wealthy, but not necessarily).
It sounds like a convincing argument at first... until you apply it elsewhere. Boston Common is a public space, so how dare we have two classes of users: those who can afford a townhouse on Beacon Hill abutting it, and those who need to use the T or pay for parking in the garage just to get there?
The bottom line is that, as Homer Simpson's brain once told him, "Money can buy goods and services" (Homer: "woo-hoo!") ... whether it's a public good or not, nearly everything can be made more convenient for those who are willing to pay more for it. I'll say it once more: That's not necessarily a bad thing, since the benefits - especially where technology is concerned - can rapidly trickle down. Just because some people may enjoy it more at first doesn't make it unfair - or inefficient -in the long run.
The T isn't passing the buck here. They've been extremely proactive in making the transit data available to the public, which in itself is commendable. While middle-class people might use the resulting apps first, this won't in the long run create two classes of riders. As I've argued, technology trickle-down is often rapid and relies on first adopters (who are often middle class or wealthy, but not necessarily).
It sounds like a convincing argument at first... until you apply it elsewhere. Boston Common is a public space, so how dare we have two classes of users: those who can afford a townhouse on Beacon Hill abutting it, and those who need to use the T or pay for parking in the garage just to get there?
The bottom line is that, as Homer Simpson's brain once told him, "Money can buy goods and services" (Homer: "woo-hoo!") ... whether it's a public good or not, nearly everything can be made more convenient for those who are willing to pay more for it. I'll say it once more: That's not necessarily a bad thing, since the benefits - especially where technology is concerned - can rapidly trickle down. Just because some people may enjoy it more at first doesn't make it unfair - or inefficient -in the long run.
armpitsOFmight
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 12
^^Shepard, you do realize that Capitalism is failing and will be soon replaced by another system...
The DC system is very nice.
Every bus stop has a number. You can:
-Call a phone number and when prompted enter the 5 digit bus stop code, and a robot lady tells you when the next buses are coming
-Text a phone number with the code and get a text reply
-Go online (at home or via mobile) and input the 5 digit code onto the website.
This pretty much covers everyone. Dont have a cell? Use a payphone!
No bus stops have info screens BUT there has been talk of putting them in at the busiest locations. All subway stops have countdown screens.
NYC does NOT offer the phone or online service, but has installed these at the busiest locations:
The MBTA should do both.
The problem is, right now the MBTA has only released real time data for 5 bus lines. Why not just release them all?
http://mbta-bus.appspot.com/
I dont have internet on my phone, but an iphone/droid app that some people can use is better than data that no body can use.
Every bus stop has a number. You can:
-Call a phone number and when prompted enter the 5 digit bus stop code, and a robot lady tells you when the next buses are coming
-Text a phone number with the code and get a text reply
-Go online (at home or via mobile) and input the 5 digit code onto the website.
This pretty much covers everyone. Dont have a cell? Use a payphone!
No bus stops have info screens BUT there has been talk of putting them in at the busiest locations. All subway stops have countdown screens.
NYC does NOT offer the phone or online service, but has installed these at the busiest locations:
The MBTA should do both.
The problem is, right now the MBTA has only released real time data for 5 bus lines. Why not just release them all?
http://mbta-bus.appspot.com/
I dont have internet on my phone, but an iphone/droid app that some people can use is better than data that no body can use.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585
The thing to note about those bus timers is that they are installed and run by a private company. The MTA installed some last year and they never worked (the MTA is just as fucked up as the MBTA).
The MTA pays for them, theyre not free. Doesnt matter who "runs" them
(The MBTA silver line countdowns work fine)
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,963
- Reaction score
- 1,585