5 ms·

Many people are against public transit based upon a very vocal(and wealthy) minority that is opposed to it being government run instead of private enterprise. I

by hiou 11y ago

Many people are against public transit based upon a very vocal(and wealthy) minority that is opposed to it being government run instead of private enterprise. It's essentially the opposite of the ideology that caused the build up of many subways systems in the past. These very wealthy powerful people can use their power and money to distort the public opinion so that cheap bus projects end up looking like expensive subway projects and subway projects look like building a land bridge to Mars. For a great example take a look at the new Maryland Governor and one of his first actions coming into office[0][1] This is someone(and his backers) that are ideologically opposed to public transit even when it is overwhelming supported(and paid for) by the regions it directly effects. [0] http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-sun-investigates-transit-20150627-story.html http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-sun-investig... [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-republican-gov-larry-hogan-made-his-first-big-mass-transit-decision/2015/06/27/13f48dbc-1ceb-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/how-republican-gov-larry...

superuser2 11y ago
On the liberal side, many people are against public transit expansion because better public transit coverage in outlying areas makes housing more valuable, pricing people out of their apartments. I live in a dead spot on the South Side of Chicago where, ~80 years ago, the neighborhood association actually had the El demolished over gentrification concerns. There is little liberal objection to improving public transit in already expensive downtown areas, but plans to improve commute times from the south and west sides of San Francisco will almost certainly be met with vigorous opposition. Even if they wouldn't cost anything.
- codezero 11y ago
  Do you have any links to articles or pieces highlighting liberal opposition to public transit in these areas?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - ghaff 11y ago
    As others have said, the dividing line is more about income than whatever politics tend to align with income in a given area. Here's an example from Boston with the Red Line http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-red-line-stops-in-arlington-and-lexington.php http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-red-line-stops... (Arlington and Lexington, even at that time, were relatively upper income but would also have been fairly liberal--at least by national standards.)
- Frondo 11y ago
  I am not familiar with any liberal opposition to public transit...anywhere. I have lived in a number of liberal-leaning cities, all of which had extensive public transit. The opposition to those systems (their expansion, in some cases even just their operation) was universally from the right, because "run gubmint like a business, and if it doesn't make a profit, pull the plug!"
  - refurb 11y ago
    Hmmm... BART was supposed to go up into Marin county and down to San Mateo county, but it was killed by the local populous. I guess it was all those right-wingers in Marin?
    - sundaeofshock 11y ago
      Actually, it was not killed by the local populous. The whole situation was not as simplistic as you imply. http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-out-on-bart http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - knorby 11y ago
      Apparently it wasn't really killed by the local populace. There is narrative about how it would have caused sprawl-like development (certainly a conservative mindset in context). I couldn't find any references to that for Marin though. It seems what did it in for Marin at least was a campaign from the GG Bridge district, fearing a loss of power and money; there was strong support in Marin for BART (https://books.google.com/books?id=z56Ui3QFYPgC&lpg=PA136&ots=FvOprjIghn&dq=marin%20bart%20opposition&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q=marin%20bart%20opposition&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=z56Ui3QFYPgC&lpg=PA136&ots...). Edit: diction
      - chockablock 11y ago
        'populace' not 'populous'
- chipsy 11y ago
  Transit fights are usually a rich vs. poor issue with a streak of racism running through the middle, with different arguments used by the left and right as representatives of the rich, while the poor are largely uncourted(except as a minority group, which I will illustrate). In all cases the right will claim that roads and car ownership and home ownership foster independence and the solution is to build another highway to a far-flung suburb and to tear down the city. The arguments from the left are more interesting. The richest neighborhoods - in the suburbs - don't want transit. An unreliable once-an-hour bus is seen as a handout for the poors, an impractical feel-good project that cannot earn its way. A large transit development that aligns with a real neighborhood would upset the balance by making the surrounding area denser and busier. This is the position that the the western San Francisco neighborhoods have been in for the past generation - a bit too wealthy and a bit too suburban to break away from car usage, even as they are far denser than most suburbs. Many of the outlying BART stops, similarly, are large parking lots, a way of sealing in car dependence and transit as a last resort for commuters, rather than a benefit that makes the stop a destination. But then the reverse applies once you're in central cities and you're dealing with luxury condo residents: Anything less than a world-class rail system is deemed unsatisfactory, but the rails should, of course, go from one wealthy neighborhood to another. Getting the poor into the rapid system equates to more "criminals" or "thugs", and so you would get support for saturation coverage of an area that is already well-served, or a neighborhood that has undergone massive gentrification, but not underserved poor areas. This sort of thing contributes to transit system balkanization - a bad system for the poor, and a good one for the rich. In both density situations, minority political groups will get showcase wins if they can lock in by-the-doorstep bus coverage of their constituents that is too slow and indirect to be truly useful. This is something that SF and much of the East Bay has avoided, but maybe not for the right reasons. The areas that were historically lower-income got access to BART, but are simultaneously now the biggest targets for gentrification. They were intended to be handout zones, and then the rise of real estate prices ultimately flipped that idea upside down and turned BART into a gentrifying mechanism. And now we are in the situation where the system has to be developed for a plurality, rather than a handout - which is probably a good thing.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    I think this is spot on for the most part. However, I think you're discounting "bedroom communities." Chicago does them quite well - you can own a reasonably priced home in an urban neighborhood at a comfortable level of density. Not the inner city, not downtown, but not exurban sprawl either. You get a backyard, but a small one. You may need a car for domestic life, but for work you can drive or bike to the train station and ride commuter rail like Metra to avoid freeway congestion. This, to me, is the best of both worlds - people get their quasi-suburban experiences, but the city still thrives and people don't waste their lives in traffic.
cade 11y ago
Interesting to hear of objections from an economic angle. Around where I live, the argument tends to be framed as a "spreading crime" issue, which translates to allowing predominantly poor, black neighborhoods access to rich, white parts of town. It bums me out.

by hiou 11y ago

superuser2 11y ago

On the liberal side, many people are against public transit expansion because better public transit coverage in outlying areas makes housing more valuable, pricing people out of their apartments. I live in a dead spot on the South Side of Chicago where, ~80 years ago, the neighborhood association actually had the El demolished over gentrification concerns. There is little liberal objection to improving public transit in already expensive downtown areas, but plans to improve commute times from the south and west sides of San Francisco will almost certainly be met with vigorous opposition. Even if they wouldn't cost anything.

codezero 11y ago
Do you have any links to articles or pieces highlighting liberal opposition to public transit in these areas?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ghaff 11y ago
  As others have said, the dividing line is more about income than whatever politics tend to align with income in a given area. Here's an example from Boston with the Red Line http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-red-line-stops-in-arlington-and-lexington.php http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2014/02/the-red-line-stops... (Arlington and Lexington, even at that time, were relatively upper income but would also have been fairly liberal--at least by national standards.)
Frondo 11y ago
I am not familiar with any liberal opposition to public transit...anywhere. I have lived in a number of liberal-leaning cities, all of which had extensive public transit. The opposition to those systems (their expansion, in some cases even just their operation) was universally from the right, because "run gubmint like a business, and if it doesn't make a profit, pull the plug!"
- refurb 11y ago
  Hmmm... BART was supposed to go up into Marin county and down to San Mateo county, but it was killed by the local populous. I guess it was all those right-wingers in Marin?
  - sundaeofshock 11y ago
    Actually, it was not killed by the local populous. The whole situation was not as simplistic as you imply. http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-out-on-bart http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20100807/did-marin-lose-...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - knorby 11y ago
    Apparently it wasn't really killed by the local populace. There is narrative about how it would have caused sprawl-like development (certainly a conservative mindset in context). I couldn't find any references to that for Marin though. It seems what did it in for Marin at least was a campaign from the GG Bridge district, fearing a loss of power and money; there was strong support in Marin for BART (https://books.google.com/books?id=z56Ui3QFYPgC&lpg=PA136&ots=FvOprjIghn&dq=marin%20bart%20opposition&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q=marin%20bart%20opposition&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=z56Ui3QFYPgC&lpg=PA136&ots...). Edit: diction
    - chockablock 11y ago
      'populace' not 'populous'
chipsy 11y ago
Transit fights are usually a rich vs. poor issue with a streak of racism running through the middle, with different arguments used by the left and right as representatives of the rich, while the poor are largely uncourted(except as a minority group, which I will illustrate). In all cases the right will claim that roads and car ownership and home ownership foster independence and the solution is to build another highway to a far-flung suburb and to tear down the city. The arguments from the left are more interesting. The richest neighborhoods - in the suburbs - don't want transit. An unreliable once-an-hour bus is seen as a handout for the poors, an impractical feel-good project that cannot earn its way. A large transit development that aligns with a real neighborhood would upset the balance by making the surrounding area denser and busier. This is the position that the the western San Francisco neighborhoods have been in for the past generation - a bit too wealthy and a bit too suburban to break away from car usage, even as they are far denser than most suburbs. Many of the outlying BART stops, similarly, are large parking lots, a way of sealing in car dependence and transit as a last resort for commuters, rather than a benefit that makes the stop a destination. But then the reverse applies once you're in central cities and you're dealing with luxury condo residents: Anything less than a world-class rail system is deemed unsatisfactory, but the rails should, of course, go from one wealthy neighborhood to another. Getting the poor into the rapid system equates to more "criminals" or "thugs", and so you would get support for saturation coverage of an area that is already well-served, or a neighborhood that has undergone massive gentrification, but not underserved poor areas. This sort of thing contributes to transit system balkanization - a bad system for the poor, and a good one for the rich. In both density situations, minority political groups will get showcase wins if they can lock in by-the-doorstep bus coverage of their constituents that is too slow and indirect to be truly useful. This is something that SF and much of the East Bay has avoided, but maybe not for the right reasons. The areas that were historically lower-income got access to BART, but are simultaneously now the biggest targets for gentrification. They were intended to be handout zones, and then the rise of real estate prices ultimately flipped that idea upside down and turned BART into a gentrifying mechanism. And now we are in the situation where the system has to be developed for a plurality, rather than a handout - which is probably a good thing.
- superuser2 11y ago
  I think this is spot on for the most part. However, I think you're discounting "bedroom communities." Chicago does them quite well - you can own a reasonably priced home in an urban neighborhood at a comfortable level of density. Not the inner city, not downtown, but not exurban sprawl either. You get a backyard, but a small one. You may need a car for domestic life, but for work you can drive or bike to the train station and ride commuter rail like Metra to avoid freeway congestion. This, to me, is the best of both worlds - people get their quasi-suburban experiences, but the city still thrives and people don't waste their lives in traffic.

cade 11y ago

Interesting to hear of objections from an economic angle. Around where I live, the argument tends to be framed as a "spreading crime" issue, which translates to allowing predominantly poor, black neighborhoods access to rich, white parts of town. It bums me out.