3 ms·

How do any of these complaints support the need for "security checkpoints"? A city lacking a subway system altogether does not support your statement that trans

by w4 5y ago

How do any of these complaints support the need for "security checkpoints"? A city lacking a subway system altogether does not support your statement that transit systems need security checkpoints to keep out the "riff raff." The two things aren't even related to each other. Furthermore there are many clean and efficient systems in Europe that don't even have turnstiles, let alone security checkpoints. Aside from your complaints about the BART, everything you've catalogued here either reflects a lack of investment, or the old age of US subway systems as compared to the newer transit systems in Asia. Chicago and Boston's subway systems are among the very oldest subway systems in the world. They both began operation in the 1890s. Shanghai's subway system opened in the 1990s. It's also convenient that NYC, home to one of the world's very largest subway systems, didn't make your list, but Shanghai and Beijing did. Finally, it's not necessarily a good thing that authorities in China "don't care about making too much noise." NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people. The US needs more investment in public transit. There's no arguing that. But your suggestion that "security checkpoints" are necessary to have good transit just isn't true. EDIT: The Boston suburbs are served by an extensive rail system. You may have missed it because it runs as a separate line from the main subway. Here's a map: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/2020-02-commuter-rail-map-v34.pdf https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/2020-02-com...

b9a2cab5 5y ago
I've not been to NYC, so it obviously didn't make my list. > clean and efficient systems in Europe that don't even have turnstiles Europe also doesn't have a rampant property crime and homelessness issue on the scale of the Bay Area. We can argue about whether this is because of the lack of safety net, but SF spends over $50k per homeless person on aid and is _the_ worst in the nation in homelessness so clearly there are multiple factors at work here. > NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people At some point the needs of millions of commuters outweigh the desires of the few thousand residents living along a train route. A high speed electric light rail is no louder than a freeway and we already have lots of those. The issue with the current American system is that local citizens have _too_ much power in comparison to slightly less local people who may live a 20min drive away. For example, constructing new housing is obviously going to lower the price of rent, which would benefit everyone currently renting or in the market for a house. But it would screw over existing homeowners, so it's blocked even though it causes rampant inequality and homelessness. You know commuters who don't live next to you are also part of the people that live in your city? Just because they vote in a different district doesn't mean their lives aren't hugely impacted by your NIMBYism.

by w4 5y ago

b9a2cab5 5y ago

I've not been to NYC, so it obviously didn't make my list. > clean and efficient systems in Europe that don't even have turnstiles Europe also doesn't have a rampant property crime and homelessness issue on the scale of the Bay Area. We can argue about whether this is because of the lack of safety net, but SF spends over $50k per homeless person on aid and is _the_ worst in the nation in homelessness so clearly there are multiple factors at work here. > NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people At some point the needs of millions of commuters outweigh the desires of the few thousand residents living along a train route. A high speed electric light rail is no louder than a freeway and we already have lots of those. The issue with the current American system is that local citizens have _too_ much power in comparison to slightly less local people who may live a 20min drive away. For example, constructing new housing is obviously going to lower the price of rent, which would benefit everyone currently renting or in the market for a house. But it would screw over existing homeowners, so it's blocked even though it causes rampant inequality and homelessness. You know commuters who don't live next to you are also part of the people that live in your city? Just because they vote in a different district doesn't mean their lives aren't hugely impacted by your NIMBYism.