4 ms·

>During my time in Altamonte, the government-backed Ubers worked just as intended. The two-mile ride to city hall came out to around $4 — two dollars more than

>During my time in Altamonte, the government-backed Ubers worked just as intended. The two-mile ride to city hall came out to around $4 — two dollars more than the local bus system, but taking a fraction of the time. You can see how this sort of system could result in the richest transit customers being skimmed off to uber. Public transit is left with less customers, and with only the poorest and most marginalized ones. In such a state it is easy for public transit to be increasingly discredited and defunded, which continues the downward spiral further.

smallnamespace 10y ago
Well, the existing public transit systems weren't that great anyway then. Stop running the buses, pass laws to require Uber to serve persons with disabilities, then give poor people a monthly pass with credits.
Kalium 10y ago
This is an odd argument to me. Small towns like Altamonte don't have many affluent commuters with real political influence taking the buses and trains to begin with. There are plenty of big cities that are similar, like San Antonio. In most of America, your standard-issue middle-class-or-wealthier commuter doesn't touch public transit and already isn't interested in funding it to any significant level. I grew up in a town like that. San Francisco, of course, is different - public transit is so terrible that many those who can afford other choices are already pursuing other options after multiple failed reform attempts. Further changes run into political backlashes. So the worry seems wrongheaded here, too. The idea is that if you make better-off people take public transit then they will help fix it. This only works if everyone else also wants it fixed (often untrue) and the same people cannot opt out in another way (also often untrue).
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  You attract better-off consumers to transit just like any other thing, by making it more attractive than the alternatives. You do this by making it a good experience, making it convenient and making it affordable. You accomplish all these things primarily by funding it really well. With that last point in mind, diverting funding to some other parallel but not equal system simply muddles things. It decreases the amount of available funding for public transit and makes it harder to accomplish the main task of making public transit really good.
  - Kalium 10y ago
    In most American towns and cities, public transit lost the competition for better-off consumers decades ago. It isn't a good experience, it isn't convenient, it isn't fast. The only advantage is that it costs less than owning a car... if you consider your time to be worth nothing. The majority of people in middle America whose lives are organized without any regard whatsoever for public transit are not interested in funding it "really well". They're accustomed to zipping across town in their car, directly to their destination. They pay, at most, $300-$400 out-of-pocket a month for a high degree of personal autonomy and a guarantee of never being panhandled or sexually assaulted as they transit to work and back, knowing that no matter how late they are out they can get home in a reasonable amount of time. Those are the people to whom public transit advocates must appeal. These are the affluent consumers that need to be attracted. These are the people to whom, in most of middle America, public transit sounds like hell. Once upon a time I lived in San Antonio, Texas. I figured I could get by without a car. There was a bus system. There was a stop right next to my place. It was reasonable, right? After a month of spending a minimum of three hours a day on the buses for twenty minutes of driving, I gave up and got a car so I could have all those hours of my life back. That's what results look like when things are "really well" funded. The city is too geographically sprawling for any remotely cost-effective public transit system to be competitive. In smaller towns, it's so much worse. It's difficult to conceive of any public transit system that can offer cost-effective and offer competitive service at a population density of 40 per square km. For most of these people, a parallel system can hardly be less useful than the buses they have.

smallnamespace 10y ago

Well, the existing public transit systems weren't that great anyway then. Stop running the buses, pass laws to require Uber to serve persons with disabilities, then give poor people a monthly pass with credits.

Kalium 10y ago

This is an odd argument to me. Small towns like Altamonte don't have many affluent commuters with real political influence taking the buses and trains to begin with. There are plenty of big cities that are similar, like San Antonio. In most of America, your standard-issue middle-class-or-wealthier commuter doesn't touch public transit and already isn't interested in funding it to any significant level. I grew up in a town like that. San Francisco, of course, is different - public transit is so terrible that many those who can afford other choices are already pursuing other options after multiple failed reform attempts. Further changes run into political backlashes. So the worry seems wrongheaded here, too. The idea is that if you make better-off people take public transit then they will help fix it. This only works if everyone else also wants it fixed (often untrue) and the same people cannot opt out in another way (also often untrue).

Tiktaalik 10y ago
You attract better-off consumers to transit just like any other thing, by making it more attractive than the alternatives. You do this by making it a good experience, making it convenient and making it affordable. You accomplish all these things primarily by funding it really well. With that last point in mind, diverting funding to some other parallel but not equal system simply muddles things. It decreases the amount of available funding for public transit and makes it harder to accomplish the main task of making public transit really good.
- Kalium 10y ago
  In most American towns and cities, public transit lost the competition for better-off consumers decades ago. It isn't a good experience, it isn't convenient, it isn't fast. The only advantage is that it costs less than owning a car... if you consider your time to be worth nothing. The majority of people in middle America whose lives are organized without any regard whatsoever for public transit are not interested in funding it "really well". They're accustomed to zipping across town in their car, directly to their destination. They pay, at most, $300-$400 out-of-pocket a month for a high degree of personal autonomy and a guarantee of never being panhandled or sexually assaulted as they transit to work and back, knowing that no matter how late they are out they can get home in a reasonable amount of time. Those are the people to whom public transit advocates must appeal. These are the affluent consumers that need to be attracted. These are the people to whom, in most of middle America, public transit sounds like hell. Once upon a time I lived in San Antonio, Texas. I figured I could get by without a car. There was a bus system. There was a stop right next to my place. It was reasonable, right? After a month of spending a minimum of three hours a day on the buses for twenty minutes of driving, I gave up and got a car so I could have all those hours of my life back. That's what results look like when things are "really well" funded. The city is too geographically sprawling for any remotely cost-effective public transit system to be competitive. In smaller towns, it's so much worse. It's difficult to conceive of any public transit system that can offer cost-effective and offer competitive service at a population density of 40 per square km. For most of these people, a parallel system can hardly be less useful than the buses they have.