5 ms·
In Europe, the number of people willing to use public transit is much greater than 10%, for one thing. Another thing is that you don't really need to get matche
by xyzzyz 11y ago
In Europe, the number of people willing to use public transit is much greater than 10%, for one thing. Another thing is that you don't really need to get matched with someone going the same direction as you: people generally value living close to public transit (which is completely opposite to people living in California, who try to avoid it), and public transit generally gets you where you want to be, possibly with one or rarely two transfers.
- akgerber 11y agoThe prices in the Mission or downtown Palo Alto, for example, don't really reflect your contention that people in California don't want to live near public transit. The real issue is that California isn't building much new transit, and it's essentially impossible to build much new housing or corporate headquarters nearby— so it's mathematically impossible for many people to live near public transit.
- ghaff 11y agoIn general, rail projects are considered to increase property values. In fact, I've read the argument that light rail isn't really cost effective vs. dedicated bus lanes but the commitment associated with a rail line makes often makes it preferable for planning purposes. (In that buses, in addition to having a lower-class image, can always have their routes altered so--the argument goes--people won't make property decisions based on bus lines.)
- marssaxman 11y agoI believe that people in the USA would be just as willing to use public transit as people in Europe, if we had public transit systems that were actually worth using. Just look at New York, Boston, or Chicago: they have real transit systems, and people use them.