46 ms·

I've used public transportation all over the world (Japan, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Seoul, London, Paris, Rome, Istanbul, Barcelona, Brusse

I've used public transportation all over the world (Japan, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Seoul, London, Paris, Rome, Istanbul, Barcelona, Brussels, Antwerp, Berlin, Copenhagen, Amsterdam). Of those, SF's is by far the worst. SF might be #3? in the USA (NYC->Chicago->SF) but it's still arguably crap compared to all those others. The Muni effectively has no schedule. Just show up and pray. There's no way to plan your trip except to go 30 minutes early. The Bart rarely comes since there's effectively one bottleneck track so you have to wait 20-30 minutes for the correct train. The muni actually has the same problem. The Bart is also so loud that I suspect it breaks pretty much every 1st world country's occupational safety hazard rules and is effectively ruining commuter's ears. It's a horrible experience.

apsurd 4y ago
In the United States, being the 3rd best city in public transportation is infinitely better than having literally zero reliable public transport because everything is car first. suburbia is quite a miserable experience and it's tragically justified because we don't know what we don't know. i haven't traveled the world and experienced the worlds best public transit. rather, i've grown up in Los Angeles where we can't conceive that a public transit system could possibly be of any value. "what poor lowly miserable soul can't afford a car? SHAME SHAME on you poor soul" Anything is better than the suburban denial that is the concrete jungle. I love Bart.
- presentation 4y ago
  It’s hilarious that LA is building out a ton of track but they put all the stations in highway medians, guaranteeing that it will never be a useful mode of transportation ever.
  - asiachick 4y ago
    It's particularly sad in LA because LA used to have the best public transportation in the world. https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwards/dp/B01KBFJHFC https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwar...
  - brnt 4y ago
    There are no footpaths (tunnels?) that let you go there? They are surely reachable, right?
    - presentation 4y ago
      There are, but if you have to walk 5 minutes through tunnels up and down flights of stairs just to get out of the station, and then another 10 minutes to walk to whatever is actually of interest (since nice things don’t tend to be positioned right next to a noisy highway) then nobody is going to ever use that transit as a preferred mode of transportation. You’re adding 20-30 mins of misery to any transit experience. Even if LA is betting that the areas around stations will get developed because of the presence of the station, they put them in the middle of highways, which guarantees they can’t even develop on that land without destroying the highway or with some engineering heroics. So all in all, it’s a huge waste.
      - brnt 4y ago
        A few minuten to exit the station and a 10 minute walk (who lives next to a station?) do not seem unusual or badly designed to me. Can you park your bike at the station?
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        that does soilund terrible. Look at london, there is a metro station right in front of the BigBen, and other landmarks.
        brnt 4y ago
        Sure, it isn't ideal, but there is something in between dense urban PT and no PT at all: sprawl goes pretty well with (light) rail combined with busses or bikes.
        presentation 4y ago
        Crappy PT means they won’t build good PT pretty much ever since they already made the bad capital investment. It’s like sealing the fate of LA to never have good PT.
  - bregma 4y ago
    Modern North American transit is designed exclusively for the poors. The time of those people has little or no value so we can save money on getting them to our kitchen, gardens, and factories by spending their time walking more. Besides, it's good exercise and keeps them fit for their lot in life. All the money we save at the expense of the poors can be put into making the capital works impressive and highly visible so when the taxpayers are driven by (or drive by, some people like that kind of thing) they can behold how much their elected representatives have done for them and get reminded of that next time they vote.
- deltaonefour 4y ago
dangus 4y ago
In terms of urban rail transit SF can’t really be considered #3 SF is #5 in total ridership and significantly worse than that when you look at ridership per mile. I think with a mix of subjective and objective measures I can declare with some confidence that most people would take NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, and Boston over SF’s transit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_tr...
- kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
  The T in Boston is almost cartoonishly short compared to the other 4, but it's definitely a workhorse.

apsurd 4y ago

In the United States, being the 3rd best city in public transportation is infinitely better than having literally zero reliable public transport because everything is car first. suburbia is quite a miserable experience and it's tragically justified because we don't know what we don't know. i haven't traveled the world and experienced the worlds best public transit. rather, i've grown up in Los Angeles where we can't conceive that a public transit system could possibly be of any value. "what poor lowly miserable soul can't afford a car? SHAME SHAME on you poor soul" Anything is better than the suburban denial that is the concrete jungle. I love Bart.

presentation 4y ago
It’s hilarious that LA is building out a ton of track but they put all the stations in highway medians, guaranteeing that it will never be a useful mode of transportation ever.
- asiachick 4y ago
  It's particularly sad in LA because LA used to have the best public transportation in the world. https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwards/dp/B01KBFJHFC https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwar...
- brnt 4y ago
  There are no footpaths (tunnels?) that let you go there? They are surely reachable, right?
  - presentation 4y ago
    There are, but if you have to walk 5 minutes through tunnels up and down flights of stairs just to get out of the station, and then another 10 minutes to walk to whatever is actually of interest (since nice things don’t tend to be positioned right next to a noisy highway) then nobody is going to ever use that transit as a preferred mode of transportation. You’re adding 20-30 mins of misery to any transit experience. Even if LA is betting that the areas around stations will get developed because of the presence of the station, they put them in the middle of highways, which guarantees they can’t even develop on that land without destroying the highway or with some engineering heroics. So all in all, it’s a huge waste.
    - brnt 4y ago
      A few minuten to exit the station and a 10 minute walk (who lives next to a station?) do not seem unusual or badly designed to me. Can you park your bike at the station?
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        that does soilund terrible. Look at london, there is a metro station right in front of the BigBen, and other landmarks.
        brnt 4y ago
        Sure, it isn't ideal, but there is something in between dense urban PT and no PT at all: sprawl goes pretty well with (light) rail combined with busses or bikes.
        presentation 4y ago
        Crappy PT means they won’t build good PT pretty much ever since they already made the bad capital investment. It’s like sealing the fate of LA to never have good PT.
- bregma 4y ago
  Modern North American transit is designed exclusively for the poors. The time of those people has little or no value so we can save money on getting them to our kitchen, gardens, and factories by spending their time walking more. Besides, it's good exercise and keeps them fit for their lot in life. All the money we save at the expense of the poors can be put into making the capital works impressive and highly visible so when the taxpayers are driven by (or drive by, some people like that kind of thing) they can behold how much their elected representatives have done for them and get reminded of that next time they vote.
deltaonefour 4y ago

dangus 4y ago

In terms of urban rail transit SF can’t really be considered #3 SF is #5 in total ridership and significantly worse than that when you look at ridership per mile. I think with a mix of subjective and objective measures I can declare with some confidence that most people would take NYC, Washington DC, Chicago, and Boston over SF’s transit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_tr...

kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
The T in Boston is almost cartoonishly short compared to the other 4, but it's definitely a workhorse.