4 ms·

This is exactly the mentality that makes getting public transit built a problem. Trains don't cause crime. The crime was already there because of a whole heap

This is exactly the mentality that makes getting public transit built a problem. Trains don't cause crime. The crime was already there because of a whole heap of deeply embedded issues in America that, for various reasons, Americans on the whole prefer to completely ignore. The problem is that trains make these problems visible. If you rip out the trains you're just sweeping it back under the carpet which is how America tends to deal with these things. If the best economic opportunity afforded by the trains for someone is crime that's saying something about your society, not the trains.

40acres 8y ago
Bingo. To add more information to my previous point, a lot of the Lake Oswego residents lobbied against the train because they were afraid of homeless folks being in their neighborhood. The light rail in the Portland, OR area does not have turnstiles and fare enforcement is pretty lax, so its not uncommon to see a homeless person on the train. The train however hasn't caused the homeless issue, that's a completely different story. The train just allows this issue to become more of a metropolitan area issue instead of a city center issue.
ip26 8y ago
To be more accurate, in this case the crime was somewhere else, and it rode in on the freight rail. At a muni level, which is where a lot of public transit is done, you are hardly empowered to fix social problems a thousand miles away, so your options are limited. You try to turn away transients, or you don't. SF is in the latter camp, of course. You describe me as espousing the mentality that blocks public transit. But really, I'm just observing, it is a matter of fact that interstate rail is a source of crime in our town. You can show a crime map of our town, and there is literally a hotspot around the rail line. But I'm still pro-transit, pro-rail, the whole shebang. If anything, I feel like trying to wave arms, point fingers, & distract from this indisputable fact is sweeping things under the rug. Better we acknowledge it, and include what we're going to do about it in our pitch & plan.
- Bahamut 8y ago
  It shouldn't be in the transit planning - it should be addressed at its root cause, instead of trying to paper over the issue by focusing so much on the incidental nature of public transit bringing a shift in location. Unfortunately, oftentimes people have a very NIMBY attitude about these sort of issues in the US in general, and end up perpetuating the problem through intentional ignorance.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  Ok, so station a police officer or two in the vicinity of the stations. No need to block transportation for everyone for a few bad apples.
- jorblumesea 8y ago
  Your point illustrates the problem very clearly. Both sides have some basis in reality and have valid points about the pros/cons of public transportation. Public transit is a huge benefit to the community but also comes with a set of drawbacks. Like most things in the US, we are arguing past each other instead of working together to find a solution.
  - astrodust 8y ago
    "Let's just agree to disagree" and then nothing ever gets done. It's practically the national motto.
forapurpose 8y ago
> The crime was already there ... Crime as at generational (multi-generational?) lows. People are solving a problem that no longer exists. An American friend of mine is terrified of going into cities; it's bizarre. I've spent a lot of time in American cities, in all sorts of neighborhoods; I've never had a problem. (Like other American conservatives I've talked to, he also seems to define himself as being in opposition to liberals, in this case by putting down cities and their residents; so perhaps it's partly a political thing. However, it's a bit bizarre that political rhetoric would be confused with reality.)
- dx87 8y ago
  I don't think it's a political thing, people in cities just seem to have different expectations than people that don't. I live in the suburbs and there isn't anywhere nearby that I would worry about going. My co-worker who lives in the city says that it's dangerous to go 2 blocks from his house at night, but thinks that's normal. My wife has a co-worker who's had someone repeatedly try and break into her house, but she doesn't call the cops because she just considers it part of city life. There are some things that people in cities put up with that I think they only accept because it's been part of their entire life.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > My co-worker who lives in the city says that it's dangerous to go 2 blocks from his house at night, but thinks that's normal. My wife has a co-worker who's had someone repeatedly try and break into her house, but she doesn't call the cops because she just considers it part of city life. I know many, many people who live in American cities, and I don't know even one person with those experiences or attitudes (unless you mean, there is a specific spot within 2 blocks that feels potentially dangerous in the middle of the night - a 4 square block area in a dense city is a large area with potentially tens of thousands of people). However, I do know people in suburbs or rural areas with those attitudes and stories. In my experience, almost all the scary stories about cities come from people who don't actually live there - and the less experience they have, the more scary stories they seem to tell, similar to other bogeymen like racial stereotypes. Some people in rural areas seem to love to tell these stories these days. People I know in cities usually talk about how great it is - or at least how they could never live in the suburbs. I guess we can argue about anecdata, but the actual data shows that crime is very low. EDIT: Many edits, mostly reorganization
closeparen 8y ago
I think we ought to build transit despite the objections, but I disagree with this (frustratingly common) line of reasoning: Locking doors is just papering over the societal dysfunction that leads people to become burglars. If no one had a door lock, maybe they would be more motivated to fix the underlying social issue instead of just pushing crime elsewhere. Would you actually support the elimination of locks?

40acres 8y ago

Bingo. To add more information to my previous point, a lot of the Lake Oswego residents lobbied against the train because they were afraid of homeless folks being in their neighborhood. The light rail in the Portland, OR area does not have turnstiles and fare enforcement is pretty lax, so its not uncommon to see a homeless person on the train. The train however hasn't caused the homeless issue, that's a completely different story. The train just allows this issue to become more of a metropolitan area issue instead of a city center issue.

ip26 8y ago

To be more accurate, in this case the crime was somewhere else, and it rode in on the freight rail. At a muni level, which is where a lot of public transit is done, you are hardly empowered to fix social problems a thousand miles away, so your options are limited. You try to turn away transients, or you don't. SF is in the latter camp, of course. You describe me as espousing the mentality that blocks public transit. But really, I'm just observing, it is a matter of fact that interstate rail is a source of crime in our town. You can show a crime map of our town, and there is literally a hotspot around the rail line. But I'm still pro-transit, pro-rail, the whole shebang. If anything, I feel like trying to wave arms, point fingers, & distract from this indisputable fact is sweeping things under the rug. Better we acknowledge it, and include what we're going to do about it in our pitch & plan.

Bahamut 8y ago
It shouldn't be in the transit planning - it should be addressed at its root cause, instead of trying to paper over the issue by focusing so much on the incidental nature of public transit bringing a shift in location. Unfortunately, oftentimes people have a very NIMBY attitude about these sort of issues in the US in general, and end up perpetuating the problem through intentional ignorance.
mixmastamyk 8y ago
Ok, so station a police officer or two in the vicinity of the stations. No need to block transportation for everyone for a few bad apples.
jorblumesea 8y ago
Your point illustrates the problem very clearly. Both sides have some basis in reality and have valid points about the pros/cons of public transportation. Public transit is a huge benefit to the community but also comes with a set of drawbacks. Like most things in the US, we are arguing past each other instead of working together to find a solution.
- astrodust 8y ago
  "Let's just agree to disagree" and then nothing ever gets done. It's practically the national motto.

forapurpose 8y ago

> The crime was already there ... Crime as at generational (multi-generational?) lows. People are solving a problem that no longer exists. An American friend of mine is terrified of going into cities; it's bizarre. I've spent a lot of time in American cities, in all sorts of neighborhoods; I've never had a problem. (Like other American conservatives I've talked to, he also seems to define himself as being in opposition to liberals, in this case by putting down cities and their residents; so perhaps it's partly a political thing. However, it's a bit bizarre that political rhetoric would be confused with reality.)

dx87 8y ago
I don't think it's a political thing, people in cities just seem to have different expectations than people that don't. I live in the suburbs and there isn't anywhere nearby that I would worry about going. My co-worker who lives in the city says that it's dangerous to go 2 blocks from his house at night, but thinks that's normal. My wife has a co-worker who's had someone repeatedly try and break into her house, but she doesn't call the cops because she just considers it part of city life. There are some things that people in cities put up with that I think they only accept because it's been part of their entire life.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > My co-worker who lives in the city says that it's dangerous to go 2 blocks from his house at night, but thinks that's normal. My wife has a co-worker who's had someone repeatedly try and break into her house, but she doesn't call the cops because she just considers it part of city life. I know many, many people who live in American cities, and I don't know even one person with those experiences or attitudes (unless you mean, there is a specific spot within 2 blocks that feels potentially dangerous in the middle of the night - a 4 square block area in a dense city is a large area with potentially tens of thousands of people). However, I do know people in suburbs or rural areas with those attitudes and stories. In my experience, almost all the scary stories about cities come from people who don't actually live there - and the less experience they have, the more scary stories they seem to tell, similar to other bogeymen like racial stereotypes. Some people in rural areas seem to love to tell these stories these days. People I know in cities usually talk about how great it is - or at least how they could never live in the suburbs. I guess we can argue about anecdata, but the actual data shows that crime is very low. EDIT: Many edits, mostly reorganization

closeparen 8y ago

I think we ought to build transit despite the objections, but I disagree with this (frustratingly common) line of reasoning: Locking doors is just papering over the societal dysfunction that leads people to become burglars. If no one had a door lock, maybe they would be more motivated to fix the underlying social issue instead of just pushing crime elsewhere. Would you actually support the elimination of locks?