4 ms·

> 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 s

by 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.

by hiou 11y ago

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.