5 ms·

There's a simple explanation for this that neatly fits the questions raised in the article: public transit sucks. It's dirty, it's crowded, it's noisy. I rode

There's a simple explanation for this that neatly fits the questions raised in the article: public transit sucks. It's dirty, it's crowded, it's noisy. I rode on BART a grand total of four times in my entire life, and don't really have any desire to do it again. Were I a native of the area, you bet I'd be willing to throw money at it to make it suck less. But in the meantime, I wouldn't be riding it because, as mentioned before, it sucks.

Broken_Hippo 11y ago
It is so much more than that: I rarely lived somewhere in the states that had public transportation outside of a cab service - in one city, that cab service was unreliable if you needed to make an appointment. No pre-ordering and service times could be 15-120 minutes. In addition, in-town mass transit often wouldn't be enough in places like Indiana - most cities need transport between cities as well. To actually serve the population that benefits the most initially from public transport, it should run nights and weekends as well. Most smallish (40-50k people) stop service during these times. Add some mistrust in the government to design it correctly.. and it is no wonder people don't want to raise taxes for it. The solution, it seems, is to build it regardless because it is good for the nation.
- fphhotchips 11y ago
  The article says that people are willing to raise taxes for it. They're just not willing to use it. > Recently, transit scholars Michael Manville and Benjamin Cummins analyzed 21 local transportation funding ballots from 2001 to 2003, and found that, on average, these tax increases were approved by 63 percent of the vote. Yet a decade later, the share of commuters who drove alone in these places had fallen just 2 points, from 87 to 85 percent, while the share of transit commuters had stayed the same, at 5 percent.
  - majormajor 11y ago
    It takes a quite high level of traffic to make taking public transit—which usually, at rush hour, means standing in a hot uncomfortable crowded bus or train car. Compare that to your own private comfortable seat with noise isolation and entertainment. There seems to be very little support for increasing the number of busses to run every five minutes instead of ten, for instance. Frankly, most cities in the US don't have that level of traffic in that many places. If it's not even going to make a difference to drivers in LA it's not going to be many current drivers' first choice in the relatively traffic-free (and much less dense) car-oriented cities outside of LA. (But then, there are network effects here too, and so the question is how much that changes as the LA network continues to be built out over the next 15 years. And LA is planning on also making road driving significantly more annoying in many areas too ("road diets") which is a probably-good but obviously controversial plan. Unless, in the meantime, self-driving cars are the final nail in the coffin for non-NYC US mass-transit...
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    In fact, studies have long shown that 98% of US commuters favor transit, but rather fewer are willing to use it.[0] [0]http://www.theonion.com/article/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra-1434 http://www.theonion.com/article/report-98-percent-of-us-comm...
  - _red 11y ago
    One of the aspects rarely mentioned is: navigating public transit is hard. Have you ever tried to read a bus schedule? They are not the most user friendly documents and require some effort to parse correctly. Its certainly not something you stroll up and engage easily. I suspect that "not user friendly" and "publicly funded" are correlated.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Supporting tax increases to improve transit may indicate people think that transit, as it is, is inadequate because it is underfunded. Not being willing to ride it as it is may indicate that people think transit is inadequate, for whatever reason. These two things seem remarkably consistent, rather than the opposite.
flomo 11y ago
Keep in mind, BART is about ten times better than what usually passes for public transit. -- Someone who was stuck on SF Muni's pathetic impersonation of a subway today for 30 minutes while next to a not good-smelling guy who was tripping out on something.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  Although, as I mention when people rant about how no one will use California High Speed Rail when it's finished, BART carries 360,000 people a day. The standard response to that is usually pure denial. What we have in the US is the result of under-funding public transportation for the last 75 years.
  - flomo 11y ago
    BART should be a massive success story, given its original objectives. The Transbay Tube is running at nearly full capacity and they cannot push any more workers into downtown SF if they wanted to. And the experience is ten times better average public transit, eg relative to local bum-mobiles. Compare that to the local SF MUNI, which is primarily focused on enriching the corrupt union and corrupt vendors. And of course, service sucks, because nobody cares about it other that the political kickbacks. Except! BART is exactly the same. Every few years the BART union threatens to shut down the San Francisco economy, and the politicians always, always fold. So the conclusion should be: BART is actually only successful despite themselves because they control a key piece of infrastructure. Otherwise it is just your typical shitty corrupt government transit OP. You want CA High Speed Rail to be run like BART. Check out the CAHSR blog. They have a very active poster in your corner.

Broken_Hippo 11y ago

It is so much more than that: I rarely lived somewhere in the states that had public transportation outside of a cab service - in one city, that cab service was unreliable if you needed to make an appointment. No pre-ordering and service times could be 15-120 minutes. In addition, in-town mass transit often wouldn't be enough in places like Indiana - most cities need transport between cities as well. To actually serve the population that benefits the most initially from public transport, it should run nights and weekends as well. Most smallish (40-50k people) stop service during these times. Add some mistrust in the government to design it correctly.. and it is no wonder people don't want to raise taxes for it. The solution, it seems, is to build it regardless because it is good for the nation.

fphhotchips 11y ago
The article says that people are willing to raise taxes for it. They're just not willing to use it. > Recently, transit scholars Michael Manville and Benjamin Cummins analyzed 21 local transportation funding ballots from 2001 to 2003, and found that, on average, these tax increases were approved by 63 percent of the vote. Yet a decade later, the share of commuters who drove alone in these places had fallen just 2 points, from 87 to 85 percent, while the share of transit commuters had stayed the same, at 5 percent.
- majormajor 11y ago
  It takes a quite high level of traffic to make taking public transit—which usually, at rush hour, means standing in a hot uncomfortable crowded bus or train car. Compare that to your own private comfortable seat with noise isolation and entertainment. There seems to be very little support for increasing the number of busses to run every five minutes instead of ten, for instance. Frankly, most cities in the US don't have that level of traffic in that many places. If it's not even going to make a difference to drivers in LA it's not going to be many current drivers' first choice in the relatively traffic-free (and much less dense) car-oriented cities outside of LA. (But then, there are network effects here too, and so the question is how much that changes as the LA network continues to be built out over the next 15 years. And LA is planning on also making road driving significantly more annoying in many areas too ("road diets") which is a probably-good but obviously controversial plan. Unless, in the meantime, self-driving cars are the final nail in the coffin for non-NYC US mass-transit...
- WildUtah 11y ago
  In fact, studies have long shown that 98% of US commuters favor transit, but rather fewer are willing to use it.[0] [0]http://www.theonion.com/article/report-98-percent-of-us-commuters-favor-public-tra-1434 http://www.theonion.com/article/report-98-percent-of-us-comm...
- _red 11y ago
  One of the aspects rarely mentioned is: navigating public transit is hard. Have you ever tried to read a bus schedule? They are not the most user friendly documents and require some effort to parse correctly. Its certainly not something you stroll up and engage easily. I suspect that "not user friendly" and "publicly funded" are correlated.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Supporting tax increases to improve transit may indicate people think that transit, as it is, is inadequate because it is underfunded. Not being willing to ride it as it is may indicate that people think transit is inadequate, for whatever reason. These two things seem remarkably consistent, rather than the opposite.

flomo 11y ago

Keep in mind, BART is about ten times better than what usually passes for public transit. -- Someone who was stuck on SF Muni's pathetic impersonation of a subway today for 30 minutes while next to a not good-smelling guy who was tripping out on something.

Gibbon1 11y ago
Although, as I mention when people rant about how no one will use California High Speed Rail when it's finished, BART carries 360,000 people a day. The standard response to that is usually pure denial. What we have in the US is the result of under-funding public transportation for the last 75 years.
- flomo 11y ago
  BART should be a massive success story, given its original objectives. The Transbay Tube is running at nearly full capacity and they cannot push any more workers into downtown SF if they wanted to. And the experience is ten times better average public transit, eg relative to local bum-mobiles. Compare that to the local SF MUNI, which is primarily focused on enriching the corrupt union and corrupt vendors. And of course, service sucks, because nobody cares about it other that the political kickbacks. Except! BART is exactly the same. Every few years the BART union threatens to shut down the San Francisco economy, and the politicians always, always fold. So the conclusion should be: BART is actually only successful despite themselves because they control a key piece of infrastructure. Otherwise it is just your typical shitty corrupt government transit OP. You want CA High Speed Rail to be run like BART. Check out the CAHSR blog. They have a very active poster in your corner.