10 ms·

The bigger issue is that city planners building public transit systems don't have the same interests as commuters. Inevitably they want to use public transit as

• robert_foss 10y ago
  About the problems with the mentally ill using public transit. It seems to be something I see a lot of in every North American city I visit. The problem is likely not how mentally ill people are allowed to use public transit, but maybe the complete lack of care provided to them.
• erispoe 10y ago
  Jarrett Walker, the writer of that blog post, makes actually the same point in another post. In public transit there is a trade-off between maximizing ridership by focusing on great service on a limited number of lines, or maximizing social service by multiplying lines that go everywhere but do not offer convenient service for commuters. Walker has long been an advocate of making that trade-off apparent so taxpayers know what they're getting, and of re-balancing networks in favor of maximizing ridership. It means fewer lines, serving dense parts of cities, and running frequently. Edit: the ridership/coverage tradeoff http://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe#ridershipcoveragetradeoff http://humantransit.org/basics/the-transit-ridership-recipe#...
• 8ytecoder 10y ago
  In some cities like Bangalore and Chennai in India, there are different classes of services. You pay extra for air-conditioning or lesser stops...etc. I believe the intention was to make some extra revenue from users who are willing to pay more. I'd support such a differential pricing mechanism in US cities. I don't care about the same things you care about and I'd happily take a cheaper option but for those who do this might serve them. May be it would make the transit agencies somewhat profitable as well.
  • sqeaky 10y ago
    What features might a service differentiate on? Things like cargo capacity, amount of passengers and directness of route make sense. I cannot see how things like AC or heat would make sense as labor laws insure they need to be there for the driver and not enough would use such services to support them (and they would be priced out of existence, because AC is almost free and heat is).
    • 8ytecoder 10y ago
      I don't know the specific circumstances in the US - but at least one thing is definitely desired everywhere - pay more for "rapid" transit - stops at fewer stops?
      • wheelerwj 10y ago
        and yet, people who have the money to pay for a faster communte have time to spare and people who cant don't.
    • ntumlin 10y ago
      I can see this causing a lot of outcry, but I think some people would pay extra just to ride with other people who can afford to pay extra. It reminds me of how I've heard some people say that Target is a more expensive Walmart, where you're paying extra to avoid Walmart shoppers.
      • 10y ago
• akgerber 10y ago
  What is the social agenda that Toronto city planners are pushing in your example? It sounds like they addressing the same problem the private transit route is addressing, more slowly but more durably and more accessibly by bringing new streetcars into service, albeit with delays: http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/15/more-delays-in-streetcar-delivery-mayor-john-tory http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/15/more-delays-in-streetca... Which speaks to the strengths and weaknesses of government versus private approaches to problem-solving. Many cities have and many more cities have had privately-operated transit services— they often have strengths (responsiveness to customer demand for popular routes, technological innovations) and weaknesses (competition for ridership leading to traffic problems or wasted effort, disincentives to run services as a network, higher prices). Incidentally, Jarrett Walker speaks extensively about the tradeoffs between different (legitimate) policies that transit planners face when setting up systems: http://humantransit.org/2015/07/mega-explainer-the-ridership-recipe.html http://humantransit.org/2015/07/mega-explainer-the-ridership...
• capkutay 10y ago
  This. After researching some of the big moves that SF transit has made over the past 10-20 years, I had to take it upon myself to join a San Francisco Transit Advocacy group (message me if you want to join or learn more about it) out of pure shock/awe of all the mind-bogglingly stupid decisions they made. It's amazing how city planners in every dept focus on politics as opposed to building legitimately good infrastructure that makes people say 'wow, they really planned this well!' (e.g. the London underground). The fact that SF is attacking uber/lyft as the source of SF's traffic problems is ridiculous[0]. It's pretty much the only way to get across town at this point unless you want your commute time doubled/tripled or have potentially unsafe run ins with the mentally ill. 0:http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-traffic-Uber-Lyft-SFMTA-blame-10791265.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-traffic-...
  • capkutay 10y ago
    If you live in SF and want to help, here's the link: http://sftransitriders.org http://sftransitriders.org
  • jellicle 10y ago
    In my experience the situation is the exact opposite. The "city planners" tend to produce perfectly reasonable transit plans, moving the most people for the least money, which then occasionally get derailed and set on fire by city or state politicians who have different interests in mind. This isn't the fault of city planners: https://www.propublica.org/article/chris-christies-tunnel-tango https://www.propublica.org/article/chris-christies-tunnel-ta... There are infinitely more examples.
• blintz 10y ago
  > Inevitably they want to use public transit as an instrument for various social policies. Yes, "social policies" like transit that's accessible to the disabled, elderly, and poor. Would you prefer planning that tells those people to stay at home where we can pretend they don't exist? > "minimum of screening so that they don't have to deal with people with severe mental issues" What kind of "screening process" do you want? What's your test? > people in city gov refuse to recognize that commuters desires are perfectly reasonable Sure, maybe you can twist your desire for fewer people with "mental issues" to be 'reasonable', but your disgust for them doesn't make good policy. It's not impossible to build transit for everyone; for both commuters, and for the poor, disabled or elderly. As long as people like you can stand to be on the bus with people who are different than you.
  • briandear 10y ago
    I don't want to ride public transport with crazy people or people that want to beg me for money or even just people that have bad hygiene or talk loudly or listen to music without headphones. Why is that unreasonable? Oh and I'd also not be waiting in the hot sun or the freezing cold for a bus that may or may not arrive on time. Then, I get to take a tour of the city while the bus stops every two minutes rather than going directly to where I need to go. Ever been from Newark Airport to midtown Manhattan? You have to take a shuttle "train" to the PATH or NY Transit, then ride that into the City, then walk a dozen blocks or wait on a crosstown bus and then another bus. Public transit has its use, but I generally hate it except in rare situations like Zurich or Berlin. As far as the disabled and elderly, interesting you mention that! How many subway stations in NYC are wheelchair accessible -- how many of those actually have functioning elevators? Of those, how many of those elevators don't smell like a homeless urinal? Very, very few stations in NYC are accessible and all of them are dirty. Public transport would be great if I didn't have to share it with the public.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • flycaliguy 10y ago
      Thank you for saying what so many people keep to themselves. I'm kind of punk so I'm into all that dirty stuff.
• duaneb 10y ago
  > Commuters just want to get to work reliably and they'd like a seat. You forgot to mention afford it. Uber is jacking up the prices for those who depend entirely on public transit--the people who most likely feed you, clean your office, drive your Uber. The people who make the city function. Your convenience actively fucks over your neighbors.
  • maverick_iceman 10y ago
    I know a lot of low income people in SF who take Uber as it is much faster and way more reliable than Muni. These people don't have the privilege to be late at their jobs.
• duaneb 10y ago
  > Commuters just want to get to work reliably and they'd like a seat. You forgot to mention afford it. Uber is jacking up the prices for those who depend entirely on public transit--the people who most likely feed you, clean your office, drive your Uber. The people who make the city function. Your convenience actively fucks over your neighbors. Reasonable? Sure. Close minded? Absolutely.
  • conanbatt 10y ago
    > Uber is jacking up the prices for those who depend entirely on public transit Uber is not raising prices of public transport. They are not part of government public transit boards or administrations. Holding them accountable for the income public transport would have if they didnt exist is simply unreasonable.
• twblalock 10y ago
  If a city wants public transit that fits the kinds of trips people actually take, they should figure out where people are taking Uber to and from, and they should build routes that serve those areas. It reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) story of the college campus that was designed without sidewalks. After a while, the college built sidewalks over the parts of the lawn that were most transformed by foot traffic, because those were the paths people preferred to take.
  • kharms 10y ago
    Good transit induces demand, to the point where it's a viable funding method for transit. Example: Tokyo.
    • galago 10y ago
      This is related to my other comment. In Somerville/Cambridge there is already a visible change in the neighborhoods like Union Square along the proposed Green Line extension. It was this way in the streetcar days of the early 20th century too, where neighborhoods sprung up when new lines were built. In Portland OR, where I used to live, the new MAX lines are having similar effects. I feel like Ubers place to shine is low-density high-income low-traffic suburbs. That's OK too, because that's a big chunk of the United States.
  • galago 10y ago
    I think in my area (Boston) if you looked at high-Uber ride zones you would find areas where it has been difficult for geographical or other reasons to build mass transit. The proposed Green Line extension is partly because of traffic value, and partly because acquiring the right-of-way is still possible. On the Red Line I ride to work, there may be some Uber spike because its near capacity at rush hour. Uber is a bad solution to this because it would only put more cars on Mass Ave, which is already at capacity. They're actually addressing this by buying redesigned train cars than can hold more people and make it through the stops slightly faster. The technical term where people/animals want to walk is called a desire path. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path
• ant6n 10y ago
  Your point seems to be mostly a rant against transit and cities, and calling it "the bigger issue"
• meddlepal 10y ago
  Nailed it. I'm so fucking tired of having social politics shoved down my throat by progressives and conservatives alike. I dont care and never have. I just want to get from A to B for as little cost and time as possible.
• jpatokal 10y ago
  > The bigger issue is that city planners building public transit systems don't have the same interests as commuters. Inevitably they want to use public transit as an instrument for various social policies. Here's the thing: public transit does not function in a vacuum. You can't build public transit solely based on current traffic patterns, because the presence of good transport (say, a new rail line) will irrevocably alter traffic patterns. This means that, if you build a new rail line, you pretty much have to (eg.) change zoning near stations. Is rezoning to allow denser housing "an instrument for various social policies"? Most likely yes, but it's also the sensible thing to do!
• kartan 10y ago
  > And they'd like to have a minimum of screening so that they don't have to deal with people with severe mental issues on the way to work. For me this is a big social issue, and it is only slightly related with public transportation. If you city has enough mental ill people in the streets everything is going to suck, including public transportation. That's why you have health care for mental patients, that with the correct treatment can be a normal part of society.
• wcummings 10y ago
  People use public transit for more than commuting. I'm very frustrated with MA's current focus on "core service". Your comment about "screening" people is disgusting, and says more about you than commuters as a whole.
• RileyJames 10y ago
  In much of the Middle East they have specific carriages or areas (often optional tho, depending on the country) for women and children. Public transport should be available to all, at all times. But the mentally disabled could be provided a specific carriage. If the mentally ill are a burden in their current form, they should be provided MORE, not less, as a solution.