6 ms·

> When there is a deficit, agencies cut there first, leading to frequency-ridership spirals in which lower frequency deters riders, justifying further cuts in s

> When there is a deficit, agencies cut there first, leading to frequency-ridership spirals in which lower frequency deters riders, justifying further cuts in service until little is left. I This is one of the things that drives me nuts the most about American attitudes towards public transportation -- that they must make a significant portion of their revenue from fares/ridership. If we think that large scale people moving is important to a healthy city, we should all be funding it, even if we're not all riding it. Everyone benefits when ridership is high -- businesses, other commuters, people who cannot afford cars, etc. Why do we always seem give transportation (or public housing, etc.) a heavy initial investment then immediately start neglecting it but tightening the purse strings. We're just making our initial investments that much less valuable.

uoaei 7y ago
You know the answer to that question but it bears repeating: Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they think they will never see the benefits. So these agencies are forced to fund themselves and/or look to the private sector for support.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  > Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they think they will never see the benefits. Close. It’s not that they think they will never see the benefits, but rather they know it. Look, here is a good example of what you and the parent suggest. The ST3 passed in the Seattle ballot, which promises expansion of the public transit network. The project includes light rail to my neighborhood, in about 20 minutes of walking distance from my home. However, the planned date for delivery of the project is 2035. Knowing the realities of public projects in the US, I don’t expect it before 2040s. I’ll be long retired by then. At the same time, the ST3 involved a tax increase, which for me means about $10,000 (today’s dollars, more in inflated ones) I’ll pay in additional tax before the construction is complete. In addition to that, since the farebox recovery is only around 30%, the city subsidies covers 70% of operational costs of public transit, and the subsidies come from my taxes too. To put it in concrete terms: assuming I use public transit only for commuting, annual fare costs would be $2.75248 = $1320, and so the whole operational costs apportioned to me would be $1320/0.3 = $4400, so the subsidy would be around $3000 per rider. Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle commute via public transit, so it roughly translates to $300/person/year now, which I’m paying to support public transit that I don’t even use. This number is so low only because the driving majority subsidizes the public transit riding few. Thus, since operational costs grow roughly linearly with the number of riders, if majority of people were using transit for commuting, the cost per resident would have to rise significantly. This would make my public transit costs significantly higher than my driving costs, with greatly reduced convenience. So why would I want to support public transit? The big issue here isn’t that public transit is always a bad idea, it’s just it’s a bad idea in places where government cannot do large projects quickly and cheaply, and cheaply operate them, which in 2020 is the whole US.
  - throwaheyy 7y ago
    You're ragging on public transit because you feel you have to pay for something you don't use. What about my taxes that go to paying for roads I don't drive on? There's no way the $~200 car registration is covering all the costs involved in maintaining an extensive road network. On top of that, while we’re counting up taxes I pay for which I do not receive a direct benefit: on the odd chance I did drive in my own neighborhood, why should I be paying taxes to subsidize all the roads in every other neighborhood. The point I’m making is: you can get as petty as you want in comparing what you pay with what you get, but in the long term, do you really want to live in a society that can’t have nice things because there’s one person who might just benefit slightly more from them than you can? Are Americans already so far down the road of considering public transit beneath them, that the only people who use it must not be able to afford cars, so it's not reducing car usage so it's OK to hate on?
    - xyzzyz 7y ago
      My complaint is not that I am paying for transit I don’t use. It’s not even that I’m paying for transit I can’t even use. Rather, it’s that in the alternative universe where hardly anybody is driving and almost everyone is using public transit, which as I gather is the goal, my transportation costs will go significantly up, while the convenience will go significantly down. Really, what would be the benefit for me? Why would I ever want to move to that place? The analogy about transit riders complaining at paying for roads they don’t use is wrong, and for more fundamental reason than the simple fact that the transit does in fact use roads. The biggest difference is that since overwhelming majority people drive instead of using public transit, so majority of the costs of roads is covered by drivers. Look, I’d love to move to system where you are charged for road use in proportion to your use of it. However, it would then only be fair to do the same with public transit. If public transit was actually paid for by the riders, instead of being subsidized by non-riders, bus fares would be pretty much as high as Uber fares on the same routes. Again, the issue is not that public transit is universally bad idea, it’s just most US cities simply aren’t able to build and operate them cheaply enough for it to make sense.
      - 7y ago
- mumblemumble 7y ago
  > Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes And how. My hometown is near a state line. There are somewhat lower - about 10¢ per gallon - gasoline taxes on the other side of the border. People will habitually make special trips to a gas station in the next town over - at a cost of half an hour of time (at least) and $2 worth of gasoline - in order to pay $1.50 less in taxes. To another state. That said, I'm not so sure about > because they think they will never see the benefits People don't seem to be quite so opposed to public spending on things like highways and airports. I would guess it's more that America's cherished spirit of individualism means that there's a greater tendency to oppose public spending that benefits society as a whole, but doesn't directly benefit oneself.
  - danans 7y ago
    > I would guess it's more that America's cherished spirit of individualism I suspect that the drive at the individual level to ... > directly benefit oneself. ... is universal. Germans, Swedes, Chinese - they're all just as self serving as Americans. In America, we've just built a mythology around that "cherished spirit" that often impedes us from doing common sense things like investing in comprehensive mass transit in places that it makes a lot of sense to do so. It doesn't hurt that the narrative of individualism has been very effectively used by the auto industry.
- thomascgalvin 7y ago
  Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they have been conditioned to think that any sort of public good is communism, and therefore evil, and that they are therefore righteous for protesting against it. And they have been conditioned to accept certain exceptions, like the military, or corporate welfare. That is evidence that the problem could be corrected, with correct (and ubiquitous) messaging, but we are competing against fifty years of effort and most of the major media outlets.
progval 7y ago
> American attitudes towards public transportation Unfortunately, this is happening in France too. SNCF used to be publicly funded to manage all inter-city/town railways and trains, but is now privatised and expected to make a profit.
- xvedejas 7y ago
  "Privatized and expected to make a profit" reads a lot more like Japanese transit to me, than it sounds like any American system I'm familiar with. I'm inclined to understand France as moving in a different (perhaps better) direction than the US is moving (or rather, is not moving). https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-pr...
Larrikin 7y ago
This has become my disillusion with most services in America, not just public transportation. Although public transportation serves as a good example. There is absolutely no reason the government can not provide an effective service that serves most people well, but there is a belief among the wealthy and those convinced they will be wealthy one day that nearly every single service the government provides is better provided by someone super wealthy running a for profit business. It would be fine if it was a truly competing view point. Bureaucracy can in impede fast growth to better ideas. But most of those people in the US decide that the best way to to prove their point and gain wealth is to purposefully implement bad policy so that the government isn't even a potential floor level competitor. Post offices around the world provide many services to their citizens including health insurance. Public transportation is a pleasure to use in Asia vs rush hour traffic even with crowding. Yet taxes in the US are extremely complicated and potentially expensive despite the government knowing all our nearly all the information needed to file for most citizens because corporations and those seeking to prove a point the government should not tax them have purposefully made it complicated and seek to make it complicated.
rayiner 7y ago
> Why do we always seem give transportation (or public housing, etc.) a heavy initial investment then immediately start neglecting it but tightening the purse strings. We don’t. New York’s operating budget per passenger is double London’s. (And also much more heavily subsidized. Tickets cover half of operating costs in New York, but all of operating costs in London.) Public transit advocates need to acknowledge the reality that one of the things killing public transit in the US is spending multiples of what other countries spend to get the same service. For what the second avenue subway is going to cost, France or London would have been able to build three more lines in Manhattan. American governments are selling Kias for the price of Bentley’s and transit advocates are stumped why the public isn’t interesting in buying.
- taffer 7y ago
  > Tickets cover half of operating costs in New York, but all of operating costs in London. According to Wikipedia New York has a farebox recovery ratio of 47% and London has 65%.

uoaei 7y ago

You know the answer to that question but it bears repeating: Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they think they will never see the benefits. So these agencies are forced to fund themselves and/or look to the private sector for support.

xyzzyz 7y ago
> Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they think they will never see the benefits. Close. It’s not that they think they will never see the benefits, but rather they know it. Look, here is a good example of what you and the parent suggest. The ST3 passed in the Seattle ballot, which promises expansion of the public transit network. The project includes light rail to my neighborhood, in about 20 minutes of walking distance from my home. However, the planned date for delivery of the project is 2035. Knowing the realities of public projects in the US, I don’t expect it before 2040s. I’ll be long retired by then. At the same time, the ST3 involved a tax increase, which for me means about $10,000 (today’s dollars, more in inflated ones) I’ll pay in additional tax before the construction is complete. In addition to that, since the farebox recovery is only around 30%, the city subsidies covers 70% of operational costs of public transit, and the subsidies come from my taxes too. To put it in concrete terms: assuming I use public transit only for commuting, annual fare costs would be $2.75248 = $1320, and so the whole operational costs apportioned to me would be $1320/0.3 = $4400, so the subsidy would be around $3000 per rider. Fortunately, only 10% of people in Seattle commute via public transit, so it roughly translates to $300/person/year now, which I’m paying to support public transit that I don’t even use. This number is so low only because the driving majority subsidizes the public transit riding few. Thus, since operational costs grow roughly linearly with the number of riders, if majority of people were using transit for commuting, the cost per resident would have to rise significantly. This would make my public transit costs significantly higher than my driving costs, with greatly reduced convenience. So why would I want to support public transit? The big issue here isn’t that public transit is always a bad idea, it’s just it’s a bad idea in places where government cannot do large projects quickly and cheaply, and cheaply operate them, which in 2020 is the whole US.
- throwaheyy 7y ago
  You're ragging on public transit because you feel you have to pay for something you don't use. What about my taxes that go to paying for roads I don't drive on? There's no way the $~200 car registration is covering all the costs involved in maintaining an extensive road network. On top of that, while we’re counting up taxes I pay for which I do not receive a direct benefit: on the odd chance I did drive in my own neighborhood, why should I be paying taxes to subsidize all the roads in every other neighborhood. The point I’m making is: you can get as petty as you want in comparing what you pay with what you get, but in the long term, do you really want to live in a society that can’t have nice things because there’s one person who might just benefit slightly more from them than you can? Are Americans already so far down the road of considering public transit beneath them, that the only people who use it must not be able to afford cars, so it's not reducing car usage so it's OK to hate on?
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    My complaint is not that I am paying for transit I don’t use. It’s not even that I’m paying for transit I can’t even use. Rather, it’s that in the alternative universe where hardly anybody is driving and almost everyone is using public transit, which as I gather is the goal, my transportation costs will go significantly up, while the convenience will go significantly down. Really, what would be the benefit for me? Why would I ever want to move to that place? The analogy about transit riders complaining at paying for roads they don’t use is wrong, and for more fundamental reason than the simple fact that the transit does in fact use roads. The biggest difference is that since overwhelming majority people drive instead of using public transit, so majority of the costs of roads is covered by drivers. Look, I’d love to move to system where you are charged for road use in proportion to your use of it. However, it would then only be fair to do the same with public transit. If public transit was actually paid for by the riders, instead of being subsidized by non-riders, bus fares would be pretty much as high as Uber fares on the same routes. Again, the issue is not that public transit is universally bad idea, it’s just most US cities simply aren’t able to build and operate them cheaply enough for it to make sense.
    - 7y ago
mumblemumble 7y ago
> Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes And how. My hometown is near a state line. There are somewhat lower - about 10¢ per gallon - gasoline taxes on the other side of the border. People will habitually make special trips to a gas station in the next town over - at a cost of half an hour of time (at least) and $2 worth of gasoline - in order to pay $1.50 less in taxes. To another state. That said, I'm not so sure about > because they think they will never see the benefits People don't seem to be quite so opposed to public spending on things like highways and airports. I would guess it's more that America's cherished spirit of individualism means that there's a greater tendency to oppose public spending that benefits society as a whole, but doesn't directly benefit oneself.
- danans 7y ago
  > I would guess it's more that America's cherished spirit of individualism I suspect that the drive at the individual level to ... > directly benefit oneself. ... is universal. Germans, Swedes, Chinese - they're all just as self serving as Americans. In America, we've just built a mythology around that "cherished spirit" that often impedes us from doing common sense things like investing in comprehensive mass transit in places that it makes a lot of sense to do so. It doesn't hurt that the narrative of individualism has been very effectively used by the auto industry.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
Americans have a kneejerk aversion to any sort of taxes because they have been conditioned to think that any sort of public good is communism, and therefore evil, and that they are therefore righteous for protesting against it. And they have been conditioned to accept certain exceptions, like the military, or corporate welfare. That is evidence that the problem could be corrected, with correct (and ubiquitous) messaging, but we are competing against fifty years of effort and most of the major media outlets.

progval 7y ago

> American attitudes towards public transportation Unfortunately, this is happening in France too. SNCF used to be publicly funded to manage all inter-city/town railways and trains, but is now privatised and expected to make a profit.

xvedejas 7y ago
"Privatized and expected to make a profit" reads a lot more like Japanese transit to me, than it sounds like any American system I'm familiar with. I'm inclined to understand France as moving in a different (perhaps better) direction than the US is moving (or rather, is not moving). https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-privately-owned-rail-systems-work-so-well/389/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-pr...

Larrikin 7y ago

This has become my disillusion with most services in America, not just public transportation. Although public transportation serves as a good example. There is absolutely no reason the government can not provide an effective service that serves most people well, but there is a belief among the wealthy and those convinced they will be wealthy one day that nearly every single service the government provides is better provided by someone super wealthy running a for profit business. It would be fine if it was a truly competing view point. Bureaucracy can in impede fast growth to better ideas. But most of those people in the US decide that the best way to to prove their point and gain wealth is to purposefully implement bad policy so that the government isn't even a potential floor level competitor. Post offices around the world provide many services to their citizens including health insurance. Public transportation is a pleasure to use in Asia vs rush hour traffic even with crowding. Yet taxes in the US are extremely complicated and potentially expensive despite the government knowing all our nearly all the information needed to file for most citizens because corporations and those seeking to prove a point the government should not tax them have purposefully made it complicated and seek to make it complicated.

rayiner 7y ago

> Why do we always seem give transportation (or public housing, etc.) a heavy initial investment then immediately start neglecting it but tightening the purse strings. We don’t. New York’s operating budget per passenger is double London’s. (And also much more heavily subsidized. Tickets cover half of operating costs in New York, but all of operating costs in London.) Public transit advocates need to acknowledge the reality that one of the things killing public transit in the US is spending multiples of what other countries spend to get the same service. For what the second avenue subway is going to cost, France or London would have been able to build three more lines in Manhattan. American governments are selling Kias for the price of Bentley’s and transit advocates are stumped why the public isn’t interesting in buying.

taffer 7y ago
> Tickets cover half of operating costs in New York, but all of operating costs in London. According to Wikipedia New York has a farebox recovery ratio of 47% and London has 65%.