6 ms·

The problem is that current technology is making this new model for mass transit realistic. When everyone has a cellphone, and we can have tons of sensors on ve

by GuiA 11y ago

The problem is that current technology is making this new model for mass transit realistic. When everyone has a cellphone, and we can have tons of sensors on vehicles that communicate in real time (and might eventually be self driving), the old model for transit (fixed routes, pickups at fixed times, etc.) doesn't make sense anymore. Many socially disadvantaged people would especially benefit from such a modern form of public transportation: if a single mom working a minimum wage job can go to her workplace in 20 minutes rather than 1h30 for the same price, her quality of life would dramatically improve. If you subscribe to the view that the government should provide a set of basic services to all of its population (eg basic food, shelter, education, healthcare, transportation), then what should really happen is that the local public transportation agencies (SFMTA, NYMTA, etc.) should be the ones experimenting with new models and offering incrementally better services to citizens as technology evolves. But that's not how it works, because these agencies are bloated, ineffective, and the complete opposite of innovative. In countries where public transportation is in a better shape (e.g. a lot of western european countries) and the government is more left leaning (ie has no qualms making Uber illegal), services like Uber are a bit slower to reach the mass they are in the US, but it's still going to happen in the long term. We can't have it both ways. Either we go full capitalist, and in this case privatized public transit the Uber way seems inevitable in the long term, creating a 2 tiered public transit system: one privatized that works really well for the higher social classes, and the regular public transit system that will further languish and deteriorate as only poorer people use it (an outcome which I personally hate and find absolutely dystopian). Or we need to figure out a way for local governments to provide those basic services to their citizens, growing and changing them as the technology matures. That's much more appealing, but I'm not quite sure how to get there in a way that benefits all citizens equally.

hiou 11y ago
> But that's not how it works, because these agencies are bloated, ineffective, and the complete opposite of innovative That's quite a blanket statement that sounds a whole lot like ideology. Data seems to point to a high usage in several cities[1] and usage continues to grow over time. If this was such a horrific service as you describe, I think we would see little to no ridership. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_transit_ridership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_... Please be a bit more pragmatic about actions that will effect around 100 million people.
- omonra 11y ago
  I don't know if the comment to which you are answering is right, but you did not provide any data points to refute what he's saying. You simply said that there is 'high usage' - but it could be just as well along with the systems being 'bloated, ineffective and not innovative'.
- GuiA 11y ago
  Have you ever taken public transit in Baton Rouge, Houston, Detroit, or any similar city with enormous income disparity? I have, and calling it "public transit" is doing it a very big favor. Linking to the wikipedia page that lists the US cities with highest transit usage does not strengthen your argument, because by definition those cities are likely to have better transit than the others. When a lot of people do not have any other choice than public transit to get around, using high usage and growth over time as metrics for success seems misguided.
  - Consultant32452 11y ago
    I live in Orlando and our "public transit" is definitely "poor people with no other option transit." When I visit places like Chicago, New York, or DC I'm always jealous of the quality of public transportation there.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  > If this was such a horrific service as you describe, I think we would see little to no ridership. And people would do what instead? Walk? Ride a bicycle 15 miles in subzero weather? Buy a Benz? Many pub-trans systems are horrible precisely because their bulk of their ridership are poor people who have no other options to get to work. They're over a barrel and they have no leverage to demand improvements.
hodwik 11y ago
In the US, public transit can't make major changes, in big part, because they're very beholden to the unions. Here in the Philadelphia metro, tickets for the train are sold by SEPTA ushers (cash only) who walk up and down the aisle of the train. It's been shown numerous times that a major portion of the cost of running the trains are these ushers, but the union blocks every attempt to move all sales to ticket kiosks. In fact, labor costs now make up $898,340,000 of SEPTA's $1,259,764,000 budget, but time and again any move to lower that cost is blocked outright.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I used to commute from Wilmington to Philadelphia on SEPTA. It's fucking insane. The infrastructure is actually pretty nice. Good new trains, express tracks, etc. But they don't even have ticket vending machines like Amtrak/Metro North/etc. You have to wait in line for a human cashier.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  This anecdote says more about Philadelphia than it does about American public transit in general. The metro system here in DC, for instance, has automated ticketing kiosks that allow payment both by cash and credit card, as well as smartcard commuter passes that can be reloaded at stations or online. My experience with NYC's subway is more limited, but it seems to offer a similar range of conveniences.
  - Symmetry 11y ago
    Philadelphia is particularly bad in terms of labor costs and DC is particularly good. Most US subways don't do ticketing the way that Philadelphia does but they do often put more people on trains than they need.
  - hodwik 11y ago
    DC Metro is still crushed under the weight of their (~10,000 person strong) staff. DC Metro, while having an annual total ridership of 115 million less than the Philadelphia system (330.1 million vs. 215.3 million trips), has a personnel cost ($1.3 Billion of their $1.8b total operating cost) greater than the total cost of the Philly system (with 9,000 person staff). You're missing the point if you're only looking at the specifics of ticketing kiosks.
rmxt 11y ago
The "same price" caveat of your example is a pretty darn big exception. Quality of life would dramatically improve if we could get there, but for now, the fact that you can get across 20 miles of NYC sprawl for $2.50 is an unbeatable deal. Would any private company settle for as thin (or no) margins as any MTA does?
- GuiA 11y ago
  For sure. And NYC is a bit of an outlier, given that it probably has the best public transit infrastructure in all of the United States. That being said, I don't see why a potential future "Uberized" public transportation system couldn't offer flat rates, or even lower rates to people with lower incomes.
  - vtlynch 11y ago
    Because the "Uberized" system (at the moment) will still rely on individual vehicles. There is simply no way to compete in price with this set up. The true stupidity of the pro-Uber flock is that they are accepting Uber's "innovative" business as the solution instead of looking at what the real innovation would be: a decently funded public transit system in the USA.
- jonknee 11y ago
  What the MTA charges and what it costs the MTA aren't related. They receive massive subsidies (though amusingly the biggest subsidies go to the LIRR for people commuting in from the suburbs). http://www.wnyc.org/story/283927-mta-suburban-passengers-get-7-per-ride-subway-riders-a-buck/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/283927-mta-suburban-passengers-get...
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > the fact that you can get across 20 miles of NYC sprawl for $2.50 is an unbeatable deal. Also, the people who need to travel the furthest in NYC tend to be the ones who can afford it the least[0], which makes the flat price incredibly important. Let's not forget that one-third of all subway stops in the US are in NYC[1]. Unlimited travel between any two of these costs $116/month. That's an incredible deal indeed! > Would any private company settle for as thin (or no) margins as any MTA does? Absolutely not; the MTA itself barely 'settles' for it. They're robbed blind every year by the state legislature, because most of the folks in Albany don't care about public transit in the city. Every year, the MTA is the perennial scapegoat for the state's budget issues, and they end up having to pick up the slack and take the public heat. No private company would ever stand for this, and the MTA only does because it literally has no other choice (being a highly regulated entity). [0] This is not always true in some other cities, where the people traveling the furthest by public transit tend to be coming from the wealthiest areas and working the highest-paying jobs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems
prawn 11y ago
I think we'll see governments doubling down on rail/subway (where possible) and leaving bus services (probably minivans in most cases) largely to private enterprise.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
> if a single mom working a minimum wage job can go to her workplace in 20 minutes rather than 1h30 for the same price, her quality of life would dramatically improve. That's a big honkin' if. Here in New York, you can get an unlimited metrocard for $116 a month; that's probably a week's worth of Uber rides. Mom's not going to benefit much from that 20 minute ride if she still has to get up an hour earlier and work for two more hours to pay for Uber. > We can't have it both ways. Either we go full capitalist Also, this is a problem. If we go full capitalist and kill all government public transit, we end up having ONLY the upper classes use transit. There will be no reason to lower rates, there will be no subsidies. Is Uber going to build me a train to get me across town for $2.25? Absolutely not. A city can afford to lose money on a public transit system because it gains that money back in having a tax base and an economy that's fueled by the people who use it. A private transit company has absolutely no reason to lose money per ride, except in the very beginning when they're trying to establish a user base. After that, their interest in the local economy is not as high as the municipal government's.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- djrogers 11y ago
  > Mom's not going to benefit much from that 20 minute ride if she still has to get up an hour earlier and work for two more hours to pay for Uber If she's saving over an hour on each end of her shift, she won't have to get up earlier. Also keep in mind she's probably paying a good chunk of her wage on daycare, so cutting 2 hrs off that would help a lot too. Heck, just having an extra 2.3 hours a day to spend with your kid is way more valuable than anything else I could think of...
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    > If she's saving over an hour on each end of her shift, she won't have to get up earlier. But she will be having to pay a lot more to get to work. Which means she'll have to work more. Which means she'll have to get there earlier, or leave later. Which means that all the time she saved by not taking the bus is now spent at work. And sure, 2.3 hours with your kids is great. But making sure your kids can have dinner is better.

by GuiA 11y ago

hiou 11y ago

> But that's not how it works, because these agencies are bloated, ineffective, and the complete opposite of innovative That's quite a blanket statement that sounds a whole lot like ideology. Data seems to point to a high usage in several cities[1] and usage continues to grow over time. If this was such a horrific service as you describe, I think we would see little to no ridership. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_transit_ridership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_high_... Please be a bit more pragmatic about actions that will effect around 100 million people.

omonra 11y ago
I don't know if the comment to which you are answering is right, but you did not provide any data points to refute what he's saying. You simply said that there is 'high usage' - but it could be just as well along with the systems being 'bloated, ineffective and not innovative'.
GuiA 11y ago
Have you ever taken public transit in Baton Rouge, Houston, Detroit, or any similar city with enormous income disparity? I have, and calling it "public transit" is doing it a very big favor. Linking to the wikipedia page that lists the US cities with highest transit usage does not strengthen your argument, because by definition those cities are likely to have better transit than the others. When a lot of people do not have any other choice than public transit to get around, using high usage and growth over time as metrics for success seems misguided.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  I live in Orlando and our "public transit" is definitely "poor people with no other option transit." When I visit places like Chicago, New York, or DC I'm always jealous of the quality of public transportation there.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> If this was such a horrific service as you describe, I think we would see little to no ridership. And people would do what instead? Walk? Ride a bicycle 15 miles in subzero weather? Buy a Benz? Many pub-trans systems are horrible precisely because their bulk of their ridership are poor people who have no other options to get to work. They're over a barrel and they have no leverage to demand improvements.

hodwik 11y ago

In the US, public transit can't make major changes, in big part, because they're very beholden to the unions. Here in the Philadelphia metro, tickets for the train are sold by SEPTA ushers (cash only) who walk up and down the aisle of the train. It's been shown numerous times that a major portion of the cost of running the trains are these ushers, but the union blocks every attempt to move all sales to ticket kiosks. In fact, labor costs now make up $898,340,000 of SEPTA's $1,259,764,000 budget, but time and again any move to lower that cost is blocked outright.

rayiner 11y ago
I used to commute from Wilmington to Philadelphia on SEPTA. It's fucking insane. The infrastructure is actually pretty nice. Good new trains, express tracks, etc. But they don't even have ticket vending machines like Amtrak/Metro North/etc. You have to wait in line for a human cashier.
smacktoward 11y ago
This anecdote says more about Philadelphia than it does about American public transit in general. The metro system here in DC, for instance, has automated ticketing kiosks that allow payment both by cash and credit card, as well as smartcard commuter passes that can be reloaded at stations or online. My experience with NYC's subway is more limited, but it seems to offer a similar range of conveniences.
- Symmetry 11y ago
  Philadelphia is particularly bad in terms of labor costs and DC is particularly good. Most US subways don't do ticketing the way that Philadelphia does but they do often put more people on trains than they need.
- hodwik 11y ago
  DC Metro is still crushed under the weight of their (~10,000 person strong) staff. DC Metro, while having an annual total ridership of 115 million less than the Philadelphia system (330.1 million vs. 215.3 million trips), has a personnel cost ($1.3 Billion of their $1.8b total operating cost) greater than the total cost of the Philly system (with 9,000 person staff). You're missing the point if you're only looking at the specifics of ticketing kiosks.

rmxt 11y ago

The "same price" caveat of your example is a pretty darn big exception. Quality of life would dramatically improve if we could get there, but for now, the fact that you can get across 20 miles of NYC sprawl for $2.50 is an unbeatable deal. Would any private company settle for as thin (or no) margins as any MTA does?

GuiA 11y ago
For sure. And NYC is a bit of an outlier, given that it probably has the best public transit infrastructure in all of the United States. That being said, I don't see why a potential future "Uberized" public transportation system couldn't offer flat rates, or even lower rates to people with lower incomes.
- vtlynch 11y ago
  Because the "Uberized" system (at the moment) will still rely on individual vehicles. There is simply no way to compete in price with this set up. The true stupidity of the pro-Uber flock is that they are accepting Uber's "innovative" business as the solution instead of looking at what the real innovation would be: a decently funded public transit system in the USA.
jonknee 11y ago
What the MTA charges and what it costs the MTA aren't related. They receive massive subsidies (though amusingly the biggest subsidies go to the LIRR for people commuting in from the suburbs). http://www.wnyc.org/story/283927-mta-suburban-passengers-get-7-per-ride-subway-riders-a-buck/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/283927-mta-suburban-passengers-get...
chimeracoder 11y ago
> the fact that you can get across 20 miles of NYC sprawl for $2.50 is an unbeatable deal. Also, the people who need to travel the furthest in NYC tend to be the ones who can afford it the least[0], which makes the flat price incredibly important. Let's not forget that one-third of all subway stops in the US are in NYC[1]. Unlimited travel between any two of these costs $116/month. That's an incredible deal indeed! > Would any private company settle for as thin (or no) margins as any MTA does? Absolutely not; the MTA itself barely 'settles' for it. They're robbed blind every year by the state legislature, because most of the folks in Albany don't care about public transit in the city. Every year, the MTA is the perennial scapegoat for the state's budget issues, and they end up having to pick up the slack and take the public heat. No private company would ever stand for this, and the MTA only does because it literally has no other choice (being a highly regulated entity). [0] This is not always true in some other cities, where the people traveling the furthest by public transit tend to be coming from the wealthiest areas and working the highest-paying jobs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems

prawn 11y ago

I think we'll see governments doubling down on rail/subway (where possible) and leaving bus services (probably minivans in most cases) largely to private enterprise.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

> if a single mom working a minimum wage job can go to her workplace in 20 minutes rather than 1h30 for the same price, her quality of life would dramatically improve. That's a big honkin' if. Here in New York, you can get an unlimited metrocard for $116 a month; that's probably a week's worth of Uber rides. Mom's not going to benefit much from that 20 minute ride if she still has to get up an hour earlier and work for two more hours to pay for Uber. > We can't have it both ways. Either we go full capitalist Also, this is a problem. If we go full capitalist and kill all government public transit, we end up having ONLY the upper classes use transit. There will be no reason to lower rates, there will be no subsidies. Is Uber going to build me a train to get me across town for $2.25? Absolutely not. A city can afford to lose money on a public transit system because it gains that money back in having a tax base and an economy that's fueled by the people who use it. A private transit company has absolutely no reason to lose money per ride, except in the very beginning when they're trying to establish a user base. After that, their interest in the local economy is not as high as the municipal government's.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
djrogers 11y ago
> Mom's not going to benefit much from that 20 minute ride if she still has to get up an hour earlier and work for two more hours to pay for Uber If she's saving over an hour on each end of her shift, she won't have to get up earlier. Also keep in mind she's probably paying a good chunk of her wage on daycare, so cutting 2 hrs off that would help a lot too. Heck, just having an extra 2.3 hours a day to spend with your kid is way more valuable than anything else I could think of...
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  > If she's saving over an hour on each end of her shift, she won't have to get up earlier. But she will be having to pay a lot more to get to work. Which means she'll have to work more. Which means she'll have to get there earlier, or leave later. Which means that all the time she saved by not taking the bus is now spent at work. And sure, 2.3 hours with your kids is great. But making sure your kids can have dinner is better.