Why Public Transportation Sucks in the US
September 26, 2017 8:40 AM Subscribe
DC has the worst public transportation I've experienced in America.
I guess you haven't been to literally any city in North Carolina, then.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:54 AM on September 26, 2017 [58 favorites]
I guess you haven't been to literally any city in North Carolina, then.
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:54 AM on September 26, 2017 [58 favorites]
One word on why it sucks.
Capitalism.
(Also, see other topics like "Broadband" and "telephone infrastructure".)
posted by Samizdata at 8:56 AM on September 26, 2017 [17 favorites]
Capitalism.
(Also, see other topics like "Broadband" and "telephone infrastructure".)
posted by Samizdata at 8:56 AM on September 26, 2017 [17 favorites]
Haha, wow, they went the whole video without once mentioning race, instead falling back on that lazy "Americans love personal freedoms!" horsepucky. Yeah. White Americans love the freedom to live far away from all the black folks.
posted by tobascodagama at 8:56 AM on September 26, 2017 [86 favorites]
posted by tobascodagama at 8:56 AM on September 26, 2017 [86 favorites]
Conflation of issues: problems with urban transportation and regional transportation. The video starts by pointing out how hard it is to get between cities in the US vs UK, but transitions to talk about urban transportation, and doesn't look back.
On this: in the US, the problem is funding, specifically how you fund a bus line between cities, when the funding is focused on within the cities. So you have to get cities to work together to form regional transit districts, share costs and hand over management to a new regional entity. When done well, this is great, but there are significant (local) hurdles to getting such a system in place.
If you want to read more about the idea that "Access to transportation is the single most important factor in an individual's ability to escape poverty," here's that "Harvard report" (PDF) mentioned and briefly shown on-screen. That's the five-page executive summary of The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood Exposure Effects and County-Level Estimates (PDF, 143 pages) by Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, for Harvard University and NBER.
Not a bad video, but pretty reductive, though that's what you get with a 9 minute summary of more than a hundred years of development patterns and changes in technology. Still, I love the idea that the best way to change things is invest in public transportation instead of roadways for private cars. Then again, I'm a hippy transportation planner, so of course I'm anti-car ;)
(Seriously, major metro areas are fooked when it comes to travel time improvements - there are just too many people in too many cars. When the greater Los Angeles area is constantly congested to the point that any significant surface streets are clogged 5 minutes after the highways slow down, you know there's nothing to be done besides rail lines that don't mix with roads anywhere.)
posted by filthy light thief at 9:08 AM on September 26, 2017 [36 favorites]
On this: in the US, the problem is funding, specifically how you fund a bus line between cities, when the funding is focused on within the cities. So you have to get cities to work together to form regional transit districts, share costs and hand over management to a new regional entity. When done well, this is great, but there are significant (local) hurdles to getting such a system in place.
If you want to read more about the idea that "Access to transportation is the single most important factor in an individual's ability to escape poverty," here's that "Harvard report" (PDF) mentioned and briefly shown on-screen. That's the five-page executive summary of The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood Exposure Effects and County-Level Estimates (PDF, 143 pages) by Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, for Harvard University and NBER.
Not a bad video, but pretty reductive, though that's what you get with a 9 minute summary of more than a hundred years of development patterns and changes in technology. Still, I love the idea that the best way to change things is invest in public transportation instead of roadways for private cars. Then again, I'm a hippy transportation planner, so of course I'm anti-car ;)
(Seriously, major metro areas are fooked when it comes to travel time improvements - there are just too many people in too many cars. When the greater Los Angeles area is constantly congested to the point that any significant surface streets are clogged 5 minutes after the highways slow down, you know there's nothing to be done besides rail lines that don't mix with roads anywhere.)
posted by filthy light thief at 9:08 AM on September 26, 2017 [36 favorites]
World War II. Yeah no really, the interstate highway system is a significant strategic asset and was planned as such. In big defensive wars moving assets around quickly changes the course. Then once that asset is available, with the almost free ($0.25/gal) fuel cost, it put impossible to resist economic pressure on all the very pre-WWII infrastructure.
posted by sammyo at 9:14 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by sammyo at 9:14 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
By the end he sounds a lot like Lyle Lanley
posted by chavenet at 9:22 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by chavenet at 9:22 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
It became extremely expensive to build and operate urban mass transit anywhere but the densest of cities. If we could build and operate subways at the inflation-adjusted cost per mile of construgtion and cost per passenger-mile of operation they had when (e.g.) the New York and Chicago systems were mostly built, things would be very different indeed.
posted by MattD at 9:40 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by MattD at 9:40 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I guess you haven't been to literally any city in North Carolina, then.
Part of my issue with DC is that it's the nation's capitol. I know that public transit is crappy all over but the one place I would have expected it to function is here in DC.
Though, as with most things, our fair rulers have better options than us with their handy little underground rail that connects the capitol building and those offices.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:48 AM on September 26, 2017
Part of my issue with DC is that it's the nation's capitol. I know that public transit is crappy all over but the one place I would have expected it to function is here in DC.
Though, as with most things, our fair rulers have better options than us with their handy little underground rail that connects the capitol building and those offices.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:48 AM on September 26, 2017
It's true that it's much more expensive to build new lines and/or expand existing lines than it used to be, but new roads and lanes are also expensive, and create many other externalities that are usually unaccounted for when comparing cost per mile. On an even playing field, even some of the more expensive transit projects are better values than new road projects which somehow don't get the same level of scrutiny. "Expensive" doesn't mean anything without "compared to what?"
posted by tonycpsu at 9:51 AM on September 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 9:51 AM on September 26, 2017 [11 favorites]
Also, you don't have to build a subway to have rapid, effective mass transit. You just have to buy more buses and give them dedicated lanes, signal priority, and offboard fare payment.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:56 AM on September 26, 2017 [32 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:56 AM on September 26, 2017 [32 favorites]
Part of my issue with DC is that it's the nation's capitol. I know that public transit is crappy all over but the one place I would have expected it to function is here in DC.
For the better part of 30 years, it was pretty decent. It started going downhill in the middle of the aughts, culminating in the Red Line disaster in 2009, and from there it snowballed into the daily fuckery we have to deal with now. It doesn't help that funding and administration are controlled by two different states, a non-representative local municipality, and federal-level Congress where half of the members believe that DC is The Enemy, and all the problems are from Blah People who lack proper 'Murican bootstrappiness.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:59 AM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
For the better part of 30 years, it was pretty decent. It started going downhill in the middle of the aughts, culminating in the Red Line disaster in 2009, and from there it snowballed into the daily fuckery we have to deal with now. It doesn't help that funding and administration are controlled by two different states, a non-representative local municipality, and federal-level Congress where half of the members believe that DC is The Enemy, and all the problems are from Blah People who lack proper 'Murican bootstrappiness.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:59 AM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
And get ready Uber + electric - Labor costs may revolutionize transportation.
In the next decade the cost of on demand robotic electric powered taxis may radically change the equation. We don't know but the right combo of small group along the lines of Uber Pool, very small local bug cars and small comfortable buses could become radically popular and beat public transit costs.
posted by sammyo at 10:02 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
In the next decade the cost of on demand robotic electric powered taxis may radically change the equation. We don't know but the right combo of small group along the lines of Uber Pool, very small local bug cars and small comfortable buses could become radically popular and beat public transit costs.
posted by sammyo at 10:02 AM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
DC has the worst public transportation I've experienced in America.
I guess you haven't been to literally any city in North Carolina, then.
Yeah, that says more about the extent of your American travels than it does about DC. Not that WMATA is good by any stretch of the imagination, just that almost all the rest of them suck as much or more.
The short answer to this is always "cars." Long answer is "cars, racism, and capitalism."
posted by aspersioncast at 10:04 AM on September 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
I guess you haven't been to literally any city in North Carolina, then.
Yeah, that says more about the extent of your American travels than it does about DC. Not that WMATA is good by any stretch of the imagination, just that almost all the rest of them suck as much or more.
The short answer to this is always "cars." Long answer is "cars, racism, and capitalism."
posted by aspersioncast at 10:04 AM on September 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
When I lived in DC in the late 90s, Metro was pretty good. Me and my now-husband took it every day to/from work (Yellow Line, holla). The decline and fall has been pretty recent.
Here in Pittsburgh, transit sucks (though not as much as it used to, mainly due to third-party bus tracking apps meaning that the always highly theoretical bus timetables have an available real-time reality check so you're not standing out there like a chump forever) and is constantly--constantly--under threat of having what little it does get from the state yanked. The politicians in the rural areas detest the cities and are always looking for ways to punish us for existing.
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:24 AM on September 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
Here in Pittsburgh, transit sucks (though not as much as it used to, mainly due to third-party bus tracking apps meaning that the always highly theoretical bus timetables have an available real-time reality check so you're not standing out there like a chump forever) and is constantly--constantly--under threat of having what little it does get from the state yanked. The politicians in the rural areas detest the cities and are always looking for ways to punish us for existing.
posted by soren_lorensen at 10:24 AM on September 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
I don't have 10 minutes to watch it. Do they mention the Streetcar Conspiracy? If they don't, they're blowing smoke.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:25 AM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:25 AM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
They touch on GM's purchase of street cars and support of others to do so, too, but with the justification that buses were more modern and cost-effective at that time, only to spin around at the end and say street cars are awesome and the solution to many of today's modern city transportation woes.
Another counter-arguement to the Streetcar Conspiracy: the street cars weren't the victim of the conspiracy. They were the conspiracy. (99% invisible, via a comment by Bwithh). I haven't heard the podcast, but E. Tierney Hamilton tells a compelling story in an article titled Never Let the Truth Spoil a Good Story: Chinatown, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and Los Angeles’s Dual Histories.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:43 AM on September 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Another counter-arguement to the Streetcar Conspiracy: the street cars weren't the victim of the conspiracy. They were the conspiracy. (99% invisible, via a comment by Bwithh). I haven't heard the podcast, but E. Tierney Hamilton tells a compelling story in an article titled Never Let the Truth Spoil a Good Story: Chinatown, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and Los Angeles’s Dual Histories.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:43 AM on September 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
I found this article about the pace of Seattle's light rail development interesting:
For Zach Shaner of Seattle Transit Blog, the slow development of our light rail line has a good side. When you move at our turtle-like pace, you can see the future better, make smarter decisions, and cut fewer corners. Portland, on the other hand, moved hare-fast to construct MAX but, in the process, made mistakes that have resulted in a system that's significantly slower and less efficient than ours. (Nevertheless, Portland has nearly 100 miles of track, and we have less than 20—so, we are nowhere near being anything like "all that.")posted by mosst at 10:58 AM on September 26, 2017
....
I do not think it is time that's of value here but the cost of the thing—and a cost that has its cause in the accident of our geography. We are forced to put a lot of money into this project, and this is where the real difference is being made. Shaner says as much: "(Seattle and L.A.) are building high-quality, frequent, grade-separated transit in the contemporary United States, and both have the price tags to prove it."
I want on-demand buses that you call with a cell phone. Specify your start and end points, and the system would optimize the bus routes so everyone can get where they're going as fast as possible. Able-bodied people might be required to transfer or walk a block or two, but disabled people would get door-to-door service. There's no reason transit needs to run on fixed routes anymore.
posted by miyabo at 11:17 AM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
posted by miyabo at 11:17 AM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
Optimized == rail. On-demand gets you uber. Fuck uber.
posted by aspersioncast at 11:46 AM on September 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 11:46 AM on September 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
For anyone interested in transit, this series of posts by Jarrett Walker is a good primer on how it works and how it can be effective.
It's really trendy nowadays to talk about Uber and autonomous cars and how these things will revolutionize transit and/or even make it obsolete. But here's the problem: space. Fixed-route transit is the still best available means to move large numbers of people through a space-constrained environment. Walker elucidates this idea far better than I could.
I want on-demand buses that you call with a cell phone. Specify your start and end points, and the system would optimize the bus routes so everyone can get where they're going as fast as possible. Able-bodied people might be required to transfer or walk a block or two, but disabled people would get door-to-door service. There's no reason transit needs to run on fixed routes anymore.
This would not work. Origins and destinations are dispersed unevenly throughout a region, and many individual pairs may not involve enough traffic to route a whole bus. A system in which there are enough vehicles for any given person to call up an Uber-bus (let's call it that) that can pick them up in a few minutes and take them within a few blocks of their destination, wherever it happens to be, would involve a massive number of vehicles, creating congestion. The system would therefore need to prioritize origin-destination pairs with the greatest potential traffic, which would, in effect, mean fixed routes. Again, it's a space problem.
It became extremely expensive to build and operate urban mass transit anywhere but the densest of cities. If we could build and operate subways at the inflation-adjusted cost per mile of construgtion and cost per passenger-mile of operation they had when (e.g.) the New York and Chicago systems were mostly built, things would be very different indeed.
This is technically true, but it is worth remembering that transit (and public infrastructure generally) construction costs are way way higher in the US than in other developed economies. This article focuses on NYC, but is applicable to other US projects. As far as I can tell, nobody really knows why this is the case, although there are some plausible explanations that may contribute.
posted by breakin' the law at 11:59 AM on September 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
It's really trendy nowadays to talk about Uber and autonomous cars and how these things will revolutionize transit and/or even make it obsolete. But here's the problem: space. Fixed-route transit is the still best available means to move large numbers of people through a space-constrained environment. Walker elucidates this idea far better than I could.
I want on-demand buses that you call with a cell phone. Specify your start and end points, and the system would optimize the bus routes so everyone can get where they're going as fast as possible. Able-bodied people might be required to transfer or walk a block or two, but disabled people would get door-to-door service. There's no reason transit needs to run on fixed routes anymore.
This would not work. Origins and destinations are dispersed unevenly throughout a region, and many individual pairs may not involve enough traffic to route a whole bus. A system in which there are enough vehicles for any given person to call up an Uber-bus (let's call it that) that can pick them up in a few minutes and take them within a few blocks of their destination, wherever it happens to be, would involve a massive number of vehicles, creating congestion. The system would therefore need to prioritize origin-destination pairs with the greatest potential traffic, which would, in effect, mean fixed routes. Again, it's a space problem.
It became extremely expensive to build and operate urban mass transit anywhere but the densest of cities. If we could build and operate subways at the inflation-adjusted cost per mile of construgtion and cost per passenger-mile of operation they had when (e.g.) the New York and Chicago systems were mostly built, things would be very different indeed.
This is technically true, but it is worth remembering that transit (and public infrastructure generally) construction costs are way way higher in the US than in other developed economies. This article focuses on NYC, but is applicable to other US projects. As far as I can tell, nobody really knows why this is the case, although there are some plausible explanations that may contribute.
posted by breakin' the law at 11:59 AM on September 26, 2017 [15 favorites]
Thanks for all the additional links everyone!
posted by ellieBOA at 12:17 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by ellieBOA at 12:17 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Also, you don't have to build a subway to have rapid, effective mass transit. You just have to buy more buses and give them dedicated lanes, signal priority, and offboard fare payment.
WHich is why the state of Tennessee passed a law banning bus lanes.
posted by ocschwar at 12:28 PM on September 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
WHich is why the state of Tennessee passed a law banning bus lanes.
posted by ocschwar at 12:28 PM on September 26, 2017 [8 favorites]
I'm not sure capitalism is really usable as the only reason why mass transit in the US sucks--for instance, in Seoul (and other cities) many of the local buses and some of the rail lines are run by private companies (though they all receive subsidies from the government and are connected/managed in the same network). My understanding is that it's more private companies are the operators/maintainers (who have to meet certain requirements) for the "buyer", which is probably more accurately described as the city rather than the commuters.
It case it's not clear, the Seoul Metro (and their buses) are kind of a revelation in comparison to anything here. Climate-controlled stations with platform screen doors preventing any rolling-stock/commuter collisions, for instance.
Yeah, but I am not Korean. I am an American without a car, that spends $80 a month on transportation costs. Half of that is to a coworker so I can get home at night as our buses stop running at 8 p.m. (I get off at 8. I also live in a not-very nice neighborhood.)
The lassez-faire attitude of the U.S. Government towards allowing privately owned, for profit companies to run critical infrastructure has led to public transportation that is dubious at best, an electrical grid that has had many panic-filled articles about it's state, and a giant, first world country with a telecom infrastructure that often rates lower in performance and higher in cost than even some middle European counties.
When you let for-profit private industry run, build, and service infrastructure, at some point it becomes (and, in fact must become) all about the Benjamins. For profit companies are, you know, for profit. I made this comment before I watched the video. How often does the video maker cite economic factors as project blockers? And that was back when this stuff was nice to have, not becoming necessary for species survival.
I keep seeing Uber cited in the discussion as a possible solution. You really think the Uber board would take on public transportation without it being healthily profitable? (P.S. I can't even GER Uber where I live.)
So, yeah, my answer was a little reductive, but I was trying to keep it simple. Go ahead and point out to me where a for profit company has done anything substantial to improve critical infrastructure without being forced to and I will admit surprise. I don't own any headgear before you ask.
(Also, you make my point about the CTA in a later post. FYI, look at my profile for my location.)
posted by Samizdata at 1:16 PM on September 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
It case it's not clear, the Seoul Metro (and their buses) are kind of a revelation in comparison to anything here. Climate-controlled stations with platform screen doors preventing any rolling-stock/commuter collisions, for instance.
Yeah, but I am not Korean. I am an American without a car, that spends $80 a month on transportation costs. Half of that is to a coworker so I can get home at night as our buses stop running at 8 p.m. (I get off at 8. I also live in a not-very nice neighborhood.)
The lassez-faire attitude of the U.S. Government towards allowing privately owned, for profit companies to run critical infrastructure has led to public transportation that is dubious at best, an electrical grid that has had many panic-filled articles about it's state, and a giant, first world country with a telecom infrastructure that often rates lower in performance and higher in cost than even some middle European counties.
When you let for-profit private industry run, build, and service infrastructure, at some point it becomes (and, in fact must become) all about the Benjamins. For profit companies are, you know, for profit. I made this comment before I watched the video. How often does the video maker cite economic factors as project blockers? And that was back when this stuff was nice to have, not becoming necessary for species survival.
I keep seeing Uber cited in the discussion as a possible solution. You really think the Uber board would take on public transportation without it being healthily profitable? (P.S. I can't even GER Uber where I live.)
So, yeah, my answer was a little reductive, but I was trying to keep it simple. Go ahead and point out to me where a for profit company has done anything substantial to improve critical infrastructure without being forced to and I will admit surprise. I don't own any headgear before you ask.
(Also, you make my point about the CTA in a later post. FYI, look at my profile for my location.)
posted by Samizdata at 1:16 PM on September 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
That's also the root of Atlanta's problem with MARTA, if I understand correctly--almost all of the funding for that comes from the state, and while all the counties/cities in Metro Atlanta want to fund it more, the rest of the state is all "nah".
Actually MARTA gets zero funding from the state, it's revenue comes from sales tax in the 3 counties where it operates (Dekalb, Fulton, Clayton). Expansions have to be funded through either the capital improvements account or through issuing bonds. The gas tax in the state is restricted to roads and bridges only.
posted by LizBoBiz at 1:26 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
Actually MARTA gets zero funding from the state, it's revenue comes from sales tax in the 3 counties where it operates (Dekalb, Fulton, Clayton). Expansions have to be funded through either the capital improvements account or through issuing bonds. The gas tax in the state is restricted to roads and bridges only.
posted by LizBoBiz at 1:26 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
On this: in the US, the problem is funding, specifically how you fund a bus line between cities, when the funding is focused on within the cities. So you have to get cities to work together to form regional transit districts, share costs and hand over management to a new regional entity. When done well, this is great, but there are significant (local) hurdles to getting such a system in place.
Oh, hells yes. If there had been a twice a day bus between the rathole rural village where I grew up and the county seat where the grocery store, doctors, and reliable jobs were, I can only begin to imagine the lives that would have been transformed. Shoot, I can think of lives that would have been saved, no exaggeration. But I absolutely know that neither municipality, nor the county, would think it was worth their time and resources.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:33 PM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Oh, hells yes. If there had been a twice a day bus between the rathole rural village where I grew up and the county seat where the grocery store, doctors, and reliable jobs were, I can only begin to imagine the lives that would have been transformed. Shoot, I can think of lives that would have been saved, no exaggeration. But I absolutely know that neither municipality, nor the county, would think it was worth their time and resources.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:33 PM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
sammyo: We don't know but the right combo of small group along the lines of Uber Pool, very small local bug cars and small comfortable buses could become radically popular and beat public transit costs.
Lyft shuttles (re)invented buses -- "Ride for a low fixed fare (based on time and distance) along convenient routes, with no surprise stops." Yup, that's a bus, except slightly optimized -- "Your driver will only pull over at designated pickup and drop-off locations if requested by other passengers. Otherwise, you’ll be taken directly to your destination’s stop. [Then] Hop out at your stop and walk to your final destination."
How disruptive!
Re: lack of ridesharing in less urban settings: the time and expense to get to a requested ride makes non-urban ridesharing unrealistic for drivers (even a small college town like Davis, CA!), without subsidies. Huh, I wonder how that might work -- oh hey, that's demand responsive transport in the public sector, which is currently subsidized by the US Government in rural areas, and everywhere, for that matter.
The only challenge is to bring the "disruptive" nature of Lyft shuttles to rural settings. Really, system leasing by Lyft would be awesome for non-urban communities, instead of having them develop the system from scratch. Lyft supports the back-end, develops apps, provides monthly/ quarterly/ annual reports (to the feds, even, where those reports are required to get the grant support), and the municipality carries the staffing and equipment costs. Slap a Lyft logo under the local transit name, and ta-da!
posted by filthy light thief at 1:40 PM on September 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Lyft shuttles (re)invented buses -- "Ride for a low fixed fare (based on time and distance) along convenient routes, with no surprise stops." Yup, that's a bus, except slightly optimized -- "Your driver will only pull over at designated pickup and drop-off locations if requested by other passengers. Otherwise, you’ll be taken directly to your destination’s stop. [Then] Hop out at your stop and walk to your final destination."
How disruptive!
Re: lack of ridesharing in less urban settings: the time and expense to get to a requested ride makes non-urban ridesharing unrealistic for drivers (even a small college town like Davis, CA!), without subsidies. Huh, I wonder how that might work -- oh hey, that's demand responsive transport in the public sector, which is currently subsidized by the US Government in rural areas, and everywhere, for that matter.
The only challenge is to bring the "disruptive" nature of Lyft shuttles to rural settings. Really, system leasing by Lyft would be awesome for non-urban communities, instead of having them develop the system from scratch. Lyft supports the back-end, develops apps, provides monthly/ quarterly/ annual reports (to the feds, even, where those reports are required to get the grant support), and the municipality carries the staffing and equipment costs. Slap a Lyft logo under the local transit name, and ta-da!
posted by filthy light thief at 1:40 PM on September 26, 2017 [3 favorites]
Looping back to the OP: it irks me that there is little discussion of what transit and transportation means in the urban/ suburban/ exurban/ rural settings. It's usually one size fits all, and that one size is "New York City." Or maybe two sizes: urban and rural, as if Los Angeles is the same as Phoenix is the same as Portland is the same as Detroit, and as if rural towns are the same as ranch country.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:46 PM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by filthy light thief at 1:46 PM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
In the U.S., there's also the fact that most children ride a bus to school for years, and it's not a very pleasant experience for a lot of them. Even if they didn't have a bad time, though, they still think of the bus as something for kids. My old workplace used to pay for free unlimited bus passes because there was so little parking space. I was all cheery and chipper one morning when my new pass came in the office mail, going on about how there was a stop right near my house and another right by the office, and my office mate just got this disgusted look on her face. "There's a stop right by my house, too," she said, "but I'm a grown-up. I rode the bus in kindygarden; I don't need to do it all over again now."
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:53 PM on September 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 1:53 PM on September 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
"There's a stop right by my house, too," she said, "but I'm a grown-up. I rode the bus in kindygarden; I don't need to do it all over again now."
I can see this. Also I've heard people express that busses are for poor people, that it's somehow embarassing or shameful to have to ride one. In most countries with good public transit, busses (trains, etc) are for everyone.
posted by RustyBrooks at 1:58 PM on September 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
I can see this. Also I've heard people express that busses are for poor people, that it's somehow embarassing or shameful to have to ride one. In most countries with good public transit, busses (trains, etc) are for everyone.
posted by RustyBrooks at 1:58 PM on September 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
"There's a stop right by my house, too," she said, "but I'm a grown-up.
It my dad.
We both work for the same place, and I take the bus (free bus pass through work) or ride my bike because parking is unpossible. He pays beaucoup for a parking pass and drives, even though he lives near a much more convenient and frequent bus line than I do. The man has never once in his adult life ridden a bus, despite both my mom and myself being daily public transit riders during this same time. He just won't do it. He won't mix with the hoi polloi, he won't stand when there's no seats available, he won't suffer the indignities that the rest of us do, because he doesn't have to and no one can make him.
posted by soren_lorensen at 2:09 PM on September 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
It my dad.
We both work for the same place, and I take the bus (free bus pass through work) or ride my bike because parking is unpossible. He pays beaucoup for a parking pass and drives, even though he lives near a much more convenient and frequent bus line than I do. The man has never once in his adult life ridden a bus, despite both my mom and myself being daily public transit riders during this same time. He just won't do it. He won't mix with the hoi polloi, he won't stand when there's no seats available, he won't suffer the indignities that the rest of us do, because he doesn't have to and no one can make him.
posted by soren_lorensen at 2:09 PM on September 26, 2017 [7 favorites]
Our national costume is a motorized 2 ton suit of armor.
posted by ocschwar at 2:18 PM on September 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
posted by ocschwar at 2:18 PM on September 26, 2017 [22 favorites]
Painted with bald eagles carrying and olde-tymey banner proclaiming "FREEDOM OF THE OPEN ROAD," with an American Flag unfurled as a backdrop, emblazoned on the hood.
Stuck in traffic, crawling towards their destination, just like everyone else.
Half of them are on their phones, yelling or texting or tweeting about how much traffic sucks, oblivious of the fact that they are also part of that traffic.
Traffic is people. TRAFFIC IS PEOPLE, YOU MONSTERS!
posted by filthy light thief at 2:32 PM on September 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
Stuck in traffic, crawling towards their destination, just like everyone else.
Half of them are on their phones, yelling or texting or tweeting about how much traffic sucks, oblivious of the fact that they are also part of that traffic.
Traffic is people. TRAFFIC IS PEOPLE, YOU MONSTERS!
posted by filthy light thief at 2:32 PM on September 26, 2017 [13 favorites]
If "outdoor escalator" doesn't raise any red flags for you during the design phase, you too could craft the DC Metro System!
posted by Navelgazer at 2:41 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 2:41 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
Ah, the fond memories of trying to take public transportation between Napa and San Francisco, and taking 5 hours for a 76 Km trip (or, just a little faster than walking there), because who could be bothered to coordinate the buses with the ferry?
posted by signal at 3:04 PM on September 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by signal at 3:04 PM on September 26, 2017 [5 favorites]
Part of my issue with DC is that it's the nation's capitol. I know that public transit is crappy all over but the one place I would have expected it to function is here in DC.
This is once again a problem that originates in race. At the time when WMATA was first getting built, DC was 70-some percent black and struggling with a whole slew of social and economic crises, and some of the VA and MD counties served were much whiter than they are now. Cue typical panic about "those people" coming in and wreaking havoc. Recent gentrification has brought about some transit growth and change, but often in the form of projects designed to cater to people who think regular buses are icky (e.g. the streetcar that doubles one of the most ridden bus routes in the city, the circulator buses that aren't technically WMATA run). Meanwhile the remaining areas with high concentrations of poor black folks get the short end of the stick as ever. Here's a fun exercise for the D.C. mefites; get yourself to the Anacostia Community Muesum, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, and National Arboretum entirely on public transit. These are all national treasures with poor WMATA access. Why on earth could that be? (Hint: it has to do with the demographics of the surrounding areas).
One of my deeply held philosophies is that I have a moral obligation, as a tiny white millennial woman, to ride the bus and model for other white people that it won't give them cooties or put them in grave danger. I see so many people who don't ride out of some vague sense that "it's unsafe" with no basis in reality, and I want to stand as a counter example. In nursing school, one of my careless classmates wanted me to split Ubers with her EVERY DAY to go to a clinical site that was very transit-accessible but not in either of our neighborhoods. I had to literally show the poor naive lady how to ride and pay for the bus, because where the hell was I getting thirty extra dollars a day to essentially say "I'm too scared of this majority-black neighborhood to set foot on its sidewalks like a regular-ass city person?"
posted by ActionPopulated at 3:35 PM on September 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
This is once again a problem that originates in race. At the time when WMATA was first getting built, DC was 70-some percent black and struggling with a whole slew of social and economic crises, and some of the VA and MD counties served were much whiter than they are now. Cue typical panic about "those people" coming in and wreaking havoc. Recent gentrification has brought about some transit growth and change, but often in the form of projects designed to cater to people who think regular buses are icky (e.g. the streetcar that doubles one of the most ridden bus routes in the city, the circulator buses that aren't technically WMATA run). Meanwhile the remaining areas with high concentrations of poor black folks get the short end of the stick as ever. Here's a fun exercise for the D.C. mefites; get yourself to the Anacostia Community Muesum, Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens, and National Arboretum entirely on public transit. These are all national treasures with poor WMATA access. Why on earth could that be? (Hint: it has to do with the demographics of the surrounding areas).
One of my deeply held philosophies is that I have a moral obligation, as a tiny white millennial woman, to ride the bus and model for other white people that it won't give them cooties or put them in grave danger. I see so many people who don't ride out of some vague sense that "it's unsafe" with no basis in reality, and I want to stand as a counter example. In nursing school, one of my careless classmates wanted me to split Ubers with her EVERY DAY to go to a clinical site that was very transit-accessible but not in either of our neighborhoods. I had to literally show the poor naive lady how to ride and pay for the bus, because where the hell was I getting thirty extra dollars a day to essentially say "I'm too scared of this majority-black neighborhood to set foot on its sidewalks like a regular-ass city person?"
posted by ActionPopulated at 3:35 PM on September 26, 2017 [18 favorites]
re: school buses
One of the cool things they do in the Sydney suburbs is provide schoolchildren with bus passes rather than running separate routes for each school. The kids simply take whatever routes / transfers required to get them home. This has the added benefit of guaranteed income for bus companies, but the drawback of gaggles of schoolchildren on the bus at certain times of day.
posted by GetLute at 4:10 PM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
One of the cool things they do in the Sydney suburbs is provide schoolchildren with bus passes rather than running separate routes for each school. The kids simply take whatever routes / transfers required to get them home. This has the added benefit of guaranteed income for bus companies, but the drawback of gaggles of schoolchildren on the bus at certain times of day.
posted by GetLute at 4:10 PM on September 26, 2017 [4 favorites]
Specify your start and end points, and the system would optimize the bus routes so everyone can get where they're going as fast as possible.
Like Uber, but for dolmuş.
posted by pompomtom at 4:25 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
Like Uber, but for dolmuş.
posted by pompomtom at 4:25 PM on September 26, 2017 [2 favorites]
I can see this. Also I've heard people express that busses are for poor people, that it's somehow embarassing or shameful to have to ride one. In most countries with good public transit, busses (trains, etc) are for everyone.
This is also true in much of the US that has good public transit; I did a comparison a couple of years ago of transit commute rates between full time workers earning above and below a rough median wage of $40K. Using that as the basis for lower and higher incomes, in the classic major transit cities (NYC, SF/Oakland, DC, Boston, Chicago) low and high income workers are about equally likely to take transit; e.g. in the DC metro area, 16.3% of low wage workers and 15.6% of high wage workers take transit.
Outside of those areas, there are real differences from city to city. Seattle and Honolulu both have very similar transit mode shares, but in Seattle, 9.0% of low wage and 8.8% of high wage workers take transit, while in Honolulu, 13.5% of low wage but only 3.9% of high wage workers take transit. Salt Lake City and Las Vegas have the same transit commute share; in SLC, 2.8% of high wage and 4.2% of low wage workers take transit - in Vegas, it's 1.1% of high wage, but 5.4% of low wage workers.
People think of LA as having bad transit, when it's actually the 12th highest metro in the country by commute share (comfortably ahead of Denver and Minneapolis and just a fraction below Portland) - but in LA, low wage workers are 3.4 times more likely to take transit than high wage workers. (vs. 1.4x in Portland, 1.7x in Minneapolis, 1.9x in Denver). Similarly in Baltimore, you're 3.0x more likely to take transit if you're a low wage worker than if you're a high wage worker. North Carolina was brought up at the start of the thread - Charlotte's nobody's idea of a good transit city, but there low wage workers are only 1.6x more likely to take transit than high wage workers; in Raleigh, it's 6x.
What's important about this is that having an equal distribution of transit ridership really helps build a political base for supporting transit. I live in a city with fairly high and even transit ridership, and in our current mayoral election, even the conservative think tank stealth guy has to say that we're not planning on building enough transit. (Reading between the lines, he means that he wants to funnel transit money to his buddies in private industry, but he has to say it like it's important.)
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 5:21 PM on September 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
This is also true in much of the US that has good public transit; I did a comparison a couple of years ago of transit commute rates between full time workers earning above and below a rough median wage of $40K. Using that as the basis for lower and higher incomes, in the classic major transit cities (NYC, SF/Oakland, DC, Boston, Chicago) low and high income workers are about equally likely to take transit; e.g. in the DC metro area, 16.3% of low wage workers and 15.6% of high wage workers take transit.
Outside of those areas, there are real differences from city to city. Seattle and Honolulu both have very similar transit mode shares, but in Seattle, 9.0% of low wage and 8.8% of high wage workers take transit, while in Honolulu, 13.5% of low wage but only 3.9% of high wage workers take transit. Salt Lake City and Las Vegas have the same transit commute share; in SLC, 2.8% of high wage and 4.2% of low wage workers take transit - in Vegas, it's 1.1% of high wage, but 5.4% of low wage workers.
People think of LA as having bad transit, when it's actually the 12th highest metro in the country by commute share (comfortably ahead of Denver and Minneapolis and just a fraction below Portland) - but in LA, low wage workers are 3.4 times more likely to take transit than high wage workers. (vs. 1.4x in Portland, 1.7x in Minneapolis, 1.9x in Denver). Similarly in Baltimore, you're 3.0x more likely to take transit if you're a low wage worker than if you're a high wage worker. North Carolina was brought up at the start of the thread - Charlotte's nobody's idea of a good transit city, but there low wage workers are only 1.6x more likely to take transit than high wage workers; in Raleigh, it's 6x.
What's important about this is that having an equal distribution of transit ridership really helps build a political base for supporting transit. I live in a city with fairly high and even transit ridership, and in our current mayoral election, even the conservative think tank stealth guy has to say that we're not planning on building enough transit. (Reading between the lines, he means that he wants to funnel transit money to his buddies in private industry, but he has to say it like it's important.)
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 5:21 PM on September 26, 2017 [9 favorites]
I recently made a post about public transportation successes we're having here in L.A. It takes a lot of different municipal systems to cover the greater Los Angeles area (which is almost all of north and east SoCal now) but it's really starting to work. The Crenshaw/LAX segment is scheduled to come online in just a couple of years. It will not only help solve the LAX problem, it also addresses an underserved community.
the drawback of gaggles of schoolchildren on the bus at certain times of day.
Not schoolchildren, but it's so common to have two or three packed busses go by on their way to Santa Monica College that I don't even run morning errands on that bus route anymore. That's my only real complaint about the buses.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:26 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
the drawback of gaggles of schoolchildren on the bus at certain times of day.
Not schoolchildren, but it's so common to have two or three packed busses go by on their way to Santa Monica College that I don't even run morning errands on that bus route anymore. That's my only real complaint about the buses.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:26 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Oops, I left out the money quote:
As of June, estimated ridership on the Expo Line increased 40 percent, from 45,876 passengers last year to more than 64,000 this year — a target it wasn’t expected to reach until 2030, the Santa Monica Lookout reports.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:29 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
As of June, estimated ridership on the Expo Line increased 40 percent, from 45,876 passengers last year to more than 64,000 this year — a target it wasn’t expected to reach until 2030, the Santa Monica Lookout reports.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:29 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Speaking of Chicago's racism, lots of bus drivers and train operators are PoC, and (when I still lived there, anyway) unionized. It was rarely explicit, but there was definitely an ugly undercurrent of "why should my tax dollars pay for those people to have job security and pensions" in the resistance to fund the CTA.
And then on top of the racism behind compensation and route management, there was this assumption that any worthwhile adult human owned a car, and anyone who didn't drive -- whether out of choice or necessity -- should be forced, presumably by transportation scarcity, to bootstrap themselves into car ownership and operation. Come to think of it, I begin to see a lot of overlap between the arguments against financing mass transit and the ones against funding for public schools and universal health care.
I used to fantasize about a Chicago transit strike -- not workers, but riders. Everyone who depended on transit to get to work would stay home, and everyone who had a car would drive, and then hopefully this would make the anti-transit whiners miserable enough to shut up and chip in for the common good. (Or, y'know, maybe not, but a fish can dream.)
posted by Fish, fish, are you doing your duty? at 5:30 PM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
And then on top of the racism behind compensation and route management, there was this assumption that any worthwhile adult human owned a car, and anyone who didn't drive -- whether out of choice or necessity -- should be forced, presumably by transportation scarcity, to bootstrap themselves into car ownership and operation. Come to think of it, I begin to see a lot of overlap between the arguments against financing mass transit and the ones against funding for public schools and universal health care.
I used to fantasize about a Chicago transit strike -- not workers, but riders. Everyone who depended on transit to get to work would stay home, and everyone who had a car would drive, and then hopefully this would make the anti-transit whiners miserable enough to shut up and chip in for the common good. (Or, y'know, maybe not, but a fish can dream.)
posted by Fish, fish, are you doing your duty? at 5:30 PM on September 26, 2017 [6 favorites]
Also, you don't have to build a subway to have rapid, effective mass transit.
Totally! Trains can go on overpasses, or . . .
You just have to buy more buses
Sigh. There really are a ton of reasons most industrialized nations have inner-city rail systems. It's absurd that the US is so bad at this.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:03 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
Totally! Trains can go on overpasses, or . . .
You just have to buy more buses
Sigh. There really are a ton of reasons most industrialized nations have inner-city rail systems. It's absurd that the US is so bad at this.
posted by aspersioncast at 9:03 PM on September 26, 2017 [1 favorite]
I recently made a post about public transportation successes we're having here in L.A.
i'm intrigued by LA mayor eric garcetti (exploring a 2020 presidential run) and his efforts to make the city walkable. any thoughts? cf. denver, viz. canada
also btw...
Transport policy will give cities power over automakers
posted by kliuless at 10:43 PM on September 26, 2017
i'm intrigued by LA mayor eric garcetti (exploring a 2020 presidential run) and his efforts to make the city walkable. any thoughts? cf. denver, viz. canada
also btw...
Transport policy will give cities power over automakers
posted by kliuless at 10:43 PM on September 26, 2017
Also I've heard people express that busses are for poor people, that it's somehow embarassing or shameful to have to ride one.
Years ago, while visiting LA I was waiting at a bus stop in Beverly Hills when a convertible full of artsy 20-somethings drove by and waved and laughed at me. I texted my friend to say "that was weird," and she said "well, nobody rides the bus here." I guess they were making fun of me?
Eventually I moved to LA, and I took the bus all the dang time.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:49 AM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Years ago, while visiting LA I was waiting at a bus stop in Beverly Hills when a convertible full of artsy 20-somethings drove by and waved and laughed at me. I texted my friend to say "that was weird," and she said "well, nobody rides the bus here." I guess they were making fun of me?
Eventually I moved to LA, and I took the bus all the dang time.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 1:49 AM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
Someone upthread said that their school kids just ride regular busses to school. That must be amazing. That would be literally impossible where I live without large reforms, except maybe in the core of Austin (I live in the suburbs). There *are* bus stops in my city, but most of them just go to the local park-and-ride center and they are few and far between. Busses are a (bad) way to get down town, but not a way to get around where I live.
I ride a bike around a lot, and my suburb isn't *too* unfriendly to bikes, but not many people do that. They have really worked on expanding bike infrastructure lately though and I think that might make a difference.
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:42 AM on September 27, 2017
I ride a bike around a lot, and my suburb isn't *too* unfriendly to bikes, but not many people do that. They have really worked on expanding bike infrastructure lately though and I think that might make a difference.
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:42 AM on September 27, 2017
The other thing about busses here is that again, unless you are really literally down town, taking a bus will take 2-4x as long as driving there. I bike-commute to work often, and one time I broke a chain within austin city limits, maybe 8 miles from the absolute center of downtown. I was near a bus stop that had a bus that went by my office. It took me at least an hour to travel those 8 miles. I could have done it in 30 minutes on the bike, easy.
If you travel by bus regularly that time isn't a TOTAL loss, you can bring your laptop or a book or your phone and do some of the stuff you might do relaxing at home. But a lot of people won't want to give up an extra hour a day for transportation.
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:44 AM on September 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
If you travel by bus regularly that time isn't a TOTAL loss, you can bring your laptop or a book or your phone and do some of the stuff you might do relaxing at home. But a lot of people won't want to give up an extra hour a day for transportation.
posted by RustyBrooks at 6:44 AM on September 27, 2017 [3 favorites]
kliuless, I think the comments you linked to are interesting. Many comments brought up important points, like the difference between a walkable city and a strollable city, and also how LA is really a collection of neighborhoods, some of which are very walkable. Otoh, even though those comments are just a few years old many are now irrelevant with the completion of the expo line. But the bottom line is that LA had to do somerhing to aliviate the gridlock.
I also think "walkable" needs to be redefined. A few weekends ago I spent some time in Silverlake and was amazed at how much it's changed. It's definitely walkable, but I commented to my friend that despite this, there really wasn't anything for me there (much like my own neighborhood.) I never see areas like MacArthur Park or Slauson called walkable, but for me, having sidewalks crowded with street vendors and swap meet type stores on major transportation lines are much more walkable than the yoga studios and juice places I walk by every angle day.
As far as Garcetti making LA walkable, that's not really my area of expertise because I live in santa Monica, so I'm usually following the macro aspects of the issue. It seems like he's really looking for solutions, though.
I was able to go car-free a few years ago. Some people will never set foot on public transportation, no matter what you do. I think the goal should be to reduce as many car trips as we can, and exposure therapy seems to work: the expo line was packed the day of the women's March, and most of thise people were excited to be on the train. West Hollywood has the (ahem) Pickup to transport partiers around WeHo on the weekends.
It's still early for me, hope this isn't too rambling.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:30 AM on September 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
I also think "walkable" needs to be redefined. A few weekends ago I spent some time in Silverlake and was amazed at how much it's changed. It's definitely walkable, but I commented to my friend that despite this, there really wasn't anything for me there (much like my own neighborhood.) I never see areas like MacArthur Park or Slauson called walkable, but for me, having sidewalks crowded with street vendors and swap meet type stores on major transportation lines are much more walkable than the yoga studios and juice places I walk by every angle day.
As far as Garcetti making LA walkable, that's not really my area of expertise because I live in santa Monica, so I'm usually following the macro aspects of the issue. It seems like he's really looking for solutions, though.
I was able to go car-free a few years ago. Some people will never set foot on public transportation, no matter what you do. I think the goal should be to reduce as many car trips as we can, and exposure therapy seems to work: the expo line was packed the day of the women's March, and most of thise people were excited to be on the train. West Hollywood has the (ahem) Pickup to transport partiers around WeHo on the weekends.
It's still early for me, hope this isn't too rambling.
posted by Room 641-A at 7:30 AM on September 27, 2017 [4 favorites]
Okay, I thought "The Pickup" sounded a little racy for a transit authority. I was thinking of CityLine, a free shuttle bus from West Hollywood, a city which does not have any rail service (yet!) to the Red Line train station at Holkywood & Highland. Less sexy, but also great!
posted by Room 641-A at 8:39 AM on September 27, 2017
posted by Room 641-A at 8:39 AM on September 27, 2017
It was interesting that he chose Scotland as an example as I would say that by continental Europe standards our public transport isn't actually great. I've lived here 16 years now but the places I've visited have been very determined by train routes and drivers have more freedom to roam. On the city level, Edinburgh has an amazing, reliable and amazingly cheap bus system. And a tram (which I think is what street car means? Is there any actual difference?) that was famously a nightmare to put on but is nice to use if you happen to need to get to and from places on the single line.
I do think in the UK trams are pushed as a solution to people's prejudice against buses - I love buses in cities but loads of people are really anti them and see them as for kids and old people but trams are somehow more modern and acceptable.
posted by hfnuala at 9:15 AM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I do think in the UK trams are pushed as a solution to people's prejudice against buses - I love buses in cities but loads of people are really anti them and see them as for kids and old people but trams are somehow more modern and acceptable.
posted by hfnuala at 9:15 AM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
People use "walkability" to mean some very different things, agreed.
I live in a weird neighborhood that's like a slice of 50s suburbia marooned on the top of a high bluff surrounded by city on all sides. There are tree-lined sidewalks and children playing in the street, it's quite idyllic and only 4 miles from downtown. It's not considered "walkable" though because there's no commercial zoning in the neighborhood and to walk to a place with commerce means going down (and then up again when you're done) a very steep hill, in any number of directions. I do kind of object to people calling it "not walkable" though. I walk all the time! Just, not to the grocery store. Not until someone installs an escalator or I can send my groceries back home via drone.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:27 AM on September 27, 2017
I live in a weird neighborhood that's like a slice of 50s suburbia marooned on the top of a high bluff surrounded by city on all sides. There are tree-lined sidewalks and children playing in the street, it's quite idyllic and only 4 miles from downtown. It's not considered "walkable" though because there's no commercial zoning in the neighborhood and to walk to a place with commerce means going down (and then up again when you're done) a very steep hill, in any number of directions. I do kind of object to people calling it "not walkable" though. I walk all the time! Just, not to the grocery store. Not until someone installs an escalator or I can send my groceries back home via drone.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:27 AM on September 27, 2017
A city lab article that looks into why people prefer trains to buses.
posted by 92_elements at 1:37 PM on September 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by 92_elements at 1:37 PM on September 27, 2017 [1 favorite]
I prefer trains to buses because buses are hard on city streets, and because rail, especially sub/elevated, is more efficient, relatively easy to maintain, and provides a discrete vector that's largely insulated from congestion issues.
posted by aspersioncast at 2:06 PM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by aspersioncast at 2:06 PM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
I used to fantasize about a Chicago transit strike -- not workers, but riders. Everyone who depended on transit to get to work would stay home, and everyone who had a car would drive, and then hopefully this would make the anti-transit whiners miserable enough to shut up and chip in for the common good. (Or, y'know, maybe not, but a fish can dream.)
Or have a strike where everyone who can drive, drives, and see how much worse the traffic gets.
Boston had one of these, effectively.
Day 3 of the snow nightmare of 2014, the MBTA was utterly crippled with damaged trains disabling lines everywhere. So lots more people than usual drove. That day's evening commute brought Boston and Cambridge to a complete standstill. Walking was faster than anything. Walking, that is, in 2 feet of snow.
posted by ocschwar at 7:12 PM on September 27, 2017 [2 favorites]
This is the comment where I stand corrected and happily mention that Curbed LA named the MacArthur Park area the second most walkable area of LA. It also has a ton of public transit optioms.
posted by Room 641-A at 10:53 AM on September 28, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by Room 641-A at 10:53 AM on September 28, 2017 [2 favorites]
In San Francisco the bus routes have the same numbers as the old streetcar lines. It's pretty cool to read Dashiell Hammett and the #22 line's the same.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:31 PM on September 28, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 12:31 PM on September 28, 2017 [2 favorites]
If DC metro is working properly and my timing is right, my train ride takes about the same time as biking.
America, I bike to work every day.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:11 PM on September 28, 2017
America, I bike to work every day.
posted by aspersioncast at 7:11 PM on September 28, 2017
« Older streets of new york | For too long human mains have dominated the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
DC has the worst public transportation I've experienced in America.
posted by runcibleshaw at 8:45 AM on September 26, 2017