5 ms·
> Commuters in the Philadelphia area are now set to lose access to 50 bus routes, 66 rail stations, five regional rail lines and Sports Express trains. Service
by kevingadd 1y ago
> Commuters in the Philadelphia area are now set to lose access to 50 bus routes, 66 rail stations, five regional rail lines and Sports Express trains. Service will be cut by 20% starting August 24, with a further 25% reduction on January 1, 2026. In September, a full hiring freeze will go into effect and fares will rise to $2.90 from $2.50.
> The downsizing is a stark illustration of the fiscal reckoning that mass transit systems in some of the nation’s major cities are facing as they deal with a collective $6 billion funding shortfall. Agencies in Chicago, Boston and San Francisco have been scrambling to raise funds for their operations before the start of the next fiscal year on July 1.
It does seem right that the article refers to a "death spiral" here. Once transit becomes insufficient to get from place to place you stop using it and pivot to cars, and then there's even less justification for funding the transit system.
I wonder if American society will ever come up with a solution for this since the problem is so widespread. More cars on the road doesn't seem sustainable, traffic is already really bad in many places.
- epicureanideal 1y ago[flagged]
- arduanika 1y agoYou are directionally correct, although I think this comment takes it a little too far. Too much Orwellian monitoring and you are creating a different kind of negative experience.
- epicureanideal 1y agoAgreed. I think if fare evaders were kept off it would reduce the need for monitoring significantly, and rather than continuous monitoring, some other less invasive means of detecting destruction in progress could be found.
- t-writescode 1y agoDo you think it’s worth spending 50k+ per year per enforcer on the hundreds per week lost to fare evasion in their enforceable area?
- epicureanideal 1y agoYes, because it’s the fare evaders who also disproportionately damage the facilities, commit crimes, and make public transit unpleasant for everyone else. Also we should compare like with like, a yearly salary vs losses per week isn’t the same time period. I do agree that enforcement is more expensive than the fare-only losses though.
- t-writescode 1y ago> Yes, because it’s the fare evaders who also disproportionately damage the facilities, commit crimes, and make public transit unpleasant for everyone else. This comes from a "Broken Windows" philosophy; and I would argue it's far more important to go after the damage and crime than it is wasting money gating at the door. > a yearly salary vs losses per week isn’t the same time period. Correct, but it can be extrapolated. It would take a single employee catching $1000/week worth (at what, $2.50 to $5 per ticket?) to meet that single employee's salary, minus benefits, on average. That doesn't seem like a good investment, to me.
- BurningFrog 1y agoA train car is a public place, and a not uncommon crime scene. That makes it a very good candidate for video monitoring to me.
- qwerpy 1y agoThese issues are a big factor for me not using transit much in my area (Seattle metro area). The occasional filth, violence, and unreliability of the system due to various issues makes it so I opt to drive. I am eternally thankful that my company isn't mandating RTO. For example just this week, the light rail was shut down twice because people were stealing copper wire: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/wire-theft-disrupts-eastside-light-rail-service-second-time-in-4-days/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/wir...
- jedimastert 1y agoThe solution is to get past the idea that public transit needs to be profitable, along with any other public or government service. The idea is just asinine.
- jsbisviewtiful 1y agoThe US's obsession with profit via public service -and everything else- is asinine and embarrassing.
- chairmansteve 1y agoYes. Very few profitable roads.
- autobodie 1y agoNot true. In the early 20th century, the American automobile industry fought aggressively to divert public funding away from public transit and towards building roads, precisely because it increased their profit margins.
- t-writescode 1y agoThat’s a profitable middleman due to roads, not a profitable road.
- outside1234 1y agoEspecially since we don't make any assumption that roads are profitable. It is just insane. Cars can lose as much money as it takes but god forbid a train lose 5%.
- IncreasePosts 1y agoDoesn't that get balanced by the fact that it will take forever to get places in cars, if everyone starts using them instead of public transit?
- dylan604 1y agoI honestly do not think I've ever heard someone say that taking mass transpo is faster. Even if it does take "forever" in a car, people do not mind sitting in their car "forever" compared to sitting with strangers "forever"
- tikkabhuna 1y agoObviously a very different view, but public transport in London (UK) is very much seen as faster than driving. The only reason someone would choose to drive is if they needed to transport something difficult to take on public transport.
- dylan604 1y agoDo other cities not consider buses as part of public transport? Are we limiting our discussion to trains/subway?
- t-writescode 1y agoIn Seattle proper and anywhere its transit is good, transit and walking are definitely preferable to cars.
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoIt's called "rapid transit". That's exactly what the "rapid" part means - faster than a car. There are very few of these in the US. Chicago El, BART, but I'm unsure if there are any others.
- dylan604 1y agoMaybe I'm conflating my town's DART--Dallas Area Rapid Transit--with other cities' rapid transit, as DART includes buses which use the same city streets as cars, only the cars don't have to make stops at the bus stops like the "rapid transit" buses (which is their entire point of being). The DART train stations are few and far apart that they are really only useful for getting to/from the outskirts into town. For me to drive to my local rail station is roughly the same distance/time as to just drive downtown.
- outside1234 1y agoThe solution is to stop subsidizing cars. We build roads for cars without a strong link to usage to charges outside of some minor gas taxes. Link the cost of driving on a road to usage based on the weight of vehicle (proxy for the damage it causes) and this would be an entirely different equation.
- mbfg 1y agoThe history of the american road infrastructure was really pushed early on as a military requirement, to be able to move troops, equipment everywhere, even land planes on roads if necessary. Military purposes can be the 'undeniable' justification for almost anything.
- hiAndrewQuinn 1y agoAnd what a proxy it is. The damage caused to pavement by a vehicle's axle load is proportional to the quartic of its axle load. A 2 ton car actually causes roughly 2^4 = 16 times more damage than a 1 ton car of equivalent make does. The savage exponential here really puts into light one reason why freight trains continue to be such important logistical infrastructure.
- t-writescode 1y agoLiving without a car is much easier when the places that are lived are less car-focused. Walkability would also improve overall health because people would be burning 500-1000 more calories a day just from moving about more regularly, and it could help the obesity epidemic. That requires transitioning from the suburb layout style we use to increase places that can be gone that are walkable, and that requires more car-hostile, human-safe places… the transitional stages are very, very unpleasant for all involved, like growing one’s hair out and struggling until you can get your hair in a ponytail or braids.
- JohnBooty 1y agoThat requires transitioning from the suburb layout style we use That sounds good in the abstract, but this is a major metro area. You physically cannot cram all of the population and economic activity from the suburbs (major pharma companies, etc) into the city limits. Even if you could -- like if you could just fire up a time machine and move stuff around like a Sim City hacked save game editor -- you'd have a very large condensed urban area (comparable to NYC proper) that would still require robust public transport. You want to link adjacent population/economic centers with affordable transportation.
- tboyd47 1y agoThe solution is obvious as it is practiced in the rest of the world. Motorcycles.
- philip1209 1y agoI strongly support public transportation (specifically, rail), but: > I wonder if American society will ever come up with a solution for this since the problem is so widespread. I think the answer will be something having to do with self-driving cars. If you look at companies like Glydways, they're starting to provide transit-like services to governments. The reason I think self-driving cars will perform better in the USA is that it is high in OpEx, but low in CapEx, which I think translates better to how Americans fund things (immediate results, no big investment that can unravel)
- actionfromafar 1y agoJust thinking out loud here, but the Third World also works like that. (High OpEx, low CapEx.)
- philip1209 1y agoAmerica makes more sense if you think of it as a developing country that happens to be rich.
- runako 1y agoSelf-driving cars only look like high OpEx/low CapEx because there are a trivial number of them on the roads. At scale, they require vast investment in road infrastructure to manage congestion. Adding many more vehicles to roads that are already congested will not work. So in practice, they will be high OpEx/high CapEx. Which makes sense in a country fully captured by Capital. Unless autonomous cars are accompanied by step-function changes in the ability to build new roads cheaply, they are not the answer.
- philip1209 1y agoAmerica has and likes roads, so the marginal capex here is low. Half of the country lives in suburbs and that's not going to change overnight. So roads are an unfortunate reality of keeping America functional. Self-driving cars should enable higher throughput on existing roads, though, because they don't gawk at accidents and potentially could drive in denser formations with less separation.
- PaulHoule 1y agoA "pivot to cars" might be feasible in a small city but in a larger city there are just so many cars you can handle. Robert Moses's plans to make it easy to drive from Queens to New Jersey would have required bulldozing a lot of midtown. In a place like Tompkins County which has good bus service threatened by management problems you could have a "death spiral" that only affects transit but for Philly, NYC or Washington it would be a "death spiral" for the whole city.
- bobajeff 1y agoThe only solution to traffic I can see happening here realistically is a sudden dramatic increase to gas prices. As for public transit I can't imagine a solution. It probably won't ever be solved and thinking about such things will probably be very far from everyone's minds if the gas thing happens. I know it's not as futuristic as self driving cars or VR living but that's my honest assessment.
- AirMax98 1y agoDeath spiral is unfortunately a very correct term for this. I really can't express how different the conditions of public transit in SF and Philly are. Riding the L in Philly is unbelievably sketchy at night (passes through K&A) and I would not ride it alone if I were a woman. This is one of the main intra-city commuter rail lines in Philly. At this point, there are so few viable options that I can't really recommend public transit in Philly to anyone. Compare that to SF, where I literally take public transit everywhere, every day.