6 ms·
Nice. What voters actually want are executives that pay lip service to climate goals and all this mumbo-jumbo bullshit about public transport, but in reality, n
by avalys 3y ago
Nice. What voters actually want are executives that pay lip service to climate goals and all this mumbo-jumbo bullshit about public transport, but in reality, no one wants to ride the fucking bus. We want roads, more roads, bigger roads, better roads. Sounds like she didn't get the message.
"There’s a culture of wanting to build more, and get it done quickly, despite the policy direction that sort of forces us to take a deeper look at the public benefits of those projects,” she said in an interview."
Sounds like Caltrans is one the few agencies that is actually still able to get fucking shit done, as opposed to endlessly wringing their hands about social justice and burning taxpayer dollars to do it, while making no appreciable progress on social justice whatsoever and funneling money to their scumsucking friends in nonprofits who know the right words to say to get in on the scam too.
- _uhtu 3y agoNo one wants to ride the bus because the entire public transport budget is slashed to go to more roads, bigger roads, all of which is doing nothing to help traffic and making climate change worse?
- gedy 3y agoFrankly, the reality is bus system in California is mostly for poor people, including sketchy types that middle class people don't want to be around. Transit budget won't really change that.
- mullingitover 3y agoIn LA, it's nothing to do with funding - it's the fact that public transportation is perceived as filthy and unsafe[1] according to the LA Metro's own data. The majority of ridership is comprised of people earning <25k/yr and likely are forced to use it because they can't afford a vehicle, and most of these folks stop using public transportation the moment they have another option. [1] https://thesource.metro.net/2022/10/27/results-of-our-2022-customer-experience-survey/ https://thesource.metro.net/2022/10/27/results-of-our-2022-c...
- bartwr 3y agoFascinating, so safety and cleaniness have nothing to do with the budget? Do you volunteer to clean trains and buses for free?
- Dalewyn 3y ago>so safety and cleaniness have nothing to do with the budget? No, they do not. The safety and cleanliness of public infrastructure ultimately stem from the culture of the people living there.
- JambalayaJim 3y agoYou’re both saying the exact same thing. LA residents do not care about public transit service because they do not use it. People making under 25k a year do not have the power to compel the city to change anything.
- throwaway5959 3y agoI’ve seen people peeing on the track multiple times on the blue line and human feces on the red line. Why would I want to keep using that service?
- mullingitover 3y agoMetro's take on this problem is to add more police to the equation, but that's a sisyphean task. As long as there is no way to ban people from the system for bad behavior, having a few random cops walking around isn't going to change things. There's also a problem of people who behave badly but not in a bannable way, e.g. behaving creepily toward women but not fully crossing a line. My wife tried using the bus system for her first six months working in downtown LA, but ultimately gave up because she was getting harassed regularly. I stopped using the metro after a rider on my train walked up and down the train threatening to stab everyone and nothing was done about it. You would need a uniformed officer on every single bus and train in the city to begin to chip away at this problem. I suppose it's a budget issue in a way, but it's more of a culture issue.
- vondur 3y agoNo. The big issue is that the trains aren’t considered safe. The homeless hang out and cause a lot of issues. I’ve been accosted by them on the green line. Which is too bad as with connections you can go all the way from my area all the way to Universal Studios.
- JambalayaJim 3y agoYes when public transit is underfunded so much that only the homeless want to take it, you’re likely to be surrounded by lots of homeless on public transit. It’s a vicious cycle and the only ones who profit are the car companies.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- noqc 3y agoThere is no contradiction in both not using buses and also wishing they were better. Not even close really, the most obvious explanation for the phenomenon is that they don't use the bus because its not.
- riffic 3y agomany people already ride the bus and many more would do so if the right conditions were met.
- ptftw 3y agoI want trains and public transportation. Have lived 18 years in cities that had good public transportation. The kind where 95% of the population uses it often, many daily. Had friends who owned cars and they still mostly used public transportation. The cars were something for weekend trips but those friends were the exception. Unfortunately to get to that level in California means adding 60-80 lines with 20 to 40 stops each, having a train every 5 minutes, having express trains that skip stations, having the trains go fast, having busses every 10 minutes, keeping all of it clean and safe. We'll never get that and so people will keep asking for more freeways but the train can be so much nicer. Also, a common excuse is population density but.... Switzerland has tons of trains, is a 3x the size of the bay area with the same population Switzerland ~8 million people Bay Area ~8 million people Switzerland size: 41000 sqkm Bay Area size: 18000 sqkm Switzerland train tracks: 5200 km Bay Area train tracks: ??? (I think It's under 500 km so 1/10) Traveling on a train can be great! You get more space than a plane, you can work, relax, eat, etc... Vs a car where you mostly have to spend all your time concentrating on driving. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muPcHs-E4qc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muPcHs-E4qc
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y agoswitzerland is a landlocked country with no port and no access, and barely 1 refinery. It depends on others for imports of oil, none which are direct neighbors. Switzerland has also very rugged terrain and weather , for which early car models were not exactly built for. Contrast this with california, with the most important US port, almost 2 dozen refineries, and immediate access to oil producers. Pleasant mild weather in most parts of the territory, and flatland. My point - Switzerland built its transport network to play to its strengths. So did CA.
- schimmy_changa 3y agohmm - it's not like trains were (or are) built for rugged terrain either. If anything that point would be in favor of Switzerland...
- crznp 3y agoYou could say that the Netherlands is more suited to trains because it is flat and easy to build tracks on. Or because it is dense. Or maybe the Netherlands is poorly suited to trains because it is dense and difficult to get suitable land. And because it has ports and is close to north sea oil, so why not use cars? Switzerland and the Netherlands have trains because they made a decision to develop that strength, not because of their (polar opposite) geographies.
- chung8123 3y agoI think wants are meaningless without opportunity costs that are attached to them. There are a lot of people that will say they want cars or that they want trains and good public transportation. As the details emerge there are few people that are actually willing to pay for these costs. Some will say we need the transportation to service everyone (costs money), be fast (costs money), be safe (costs money). Wishes are worth nothing until you attach them to what it actually costs to implement.
- namuol 3y ago“Getting things done” is good under only very specific and hard to obtain conditions. Ask anyone who has ever hired a hard-working fool.