3 ms·
> only really poor people and crackheads seem to take the bus (outside SF and NYC) Note that you chose the top two of the cities in the US in terms of location
by johncolanduoni 11y ago
> only really poor people and crackheads seem to take the bus (outside SF and NYC)
Note that you chose the top two of the cities in the US in terms of locations accessible by public transit. Of course people won't use it if it can't get them where they need to go, and they'll probably just drive if there are only a few locations it services. This tends to compound itself because the low usage means trains/buses run less often, making it even less useful (e.g. LA).
The price of car ownership definitely factors in, as it results in a lack of necessity for public transportation, but it doesn't mean people wouldn't prefer it if it's available. The price difference between an unlimited metro pass ($116/month in NY, $83/month in SF) and owning a car is still very wide.
- aianus 11y agoHaving a car is a lot more useful and comfortable than public transit, though. So there really needs to be a huge difference in cost to justify spending money on public transit when you could just spend a bit more and have your own car. We see that in SF and NYC where the traffic and parking situations make driving very expensive in time and money. But elsewhere in the country? Even if it had great coverage, it wouldn't be worth the time and discomfort to take it just to save ~$200 a month (or less, if you routinely drive family members around).