Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 142 posts

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#11

Post by rayiner »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #6
pylua wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s an argument in Atlanta that mass transit hasn’t expanded more outwards because it tends to bring in more problems in terms of people. I think people are starting to change on this, but the cost would now be massive,

Atlanta's one huge success with transit that it doesn't get enough credit for is that it connects directly to the airport. So many other cities with "better" transit have complex schemes of switching between different buses operated by the airport authority and the city before you can get to the main system. In Atlanta you simply go over to baggage claim and the train is right there. Too bad they screwed this up when…

Atlanta’s huge success is that the trains run on time and they have been able to maintain the automated train control. Atlanta doesn’t get enough credit for being a blue city that actually does some basic stuff right.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#12

Post by qwerpy »

infotainment wrote: post #2

I think the biggest problem is attitude; in the US, transit is largely viewed as a welfare program for poor people who are not (yet) able to afford cars. To put it in HN terms, Americans see it like a deprecated API; something you're obligated to support somewhat, but only until your users migrate off of it. If you look at the Honolulu transit project (Formerly HART, now called Skyline), I think it shows everything w…

Seattle-area commuter here. I have to agree, transit seems mostly designed for people who don't value their time. Which don't tend to be the highly paid tech workers with families. I tried so many times to give transit "one more try". The straw that broke my back was when they silently canceled 2 buses in a row for my route, on the coldest day of the year, for a route that has 20 minutes between buses. And my suburb commuter route doesn't even have the big city problems that plague the Seattle buses.

Now I drive my single occupant 6603 lb truck to work once or twice a week, and WFH the rest of the time.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#13

Post by mrtesthah »

qwerpy wrote: post #12
infotainment wrote: post #2

I think the biggest problem is attitude; in the US, transit is largely viewed as a welfare program for poor people who are not (yet) able to afford cars. To put it in HN terms, Americans see it like a deprecated API; something you're obligated to support somewhat, but only until your users migrate off of it. If you look at the Honolulu transit project (Formerly HART, now called Skyline), I think it shows everything w…

Seattle-area commuter here. I have to agree, transit seems mostly designed for people who don't value their time. Which don't tend to be the highly paid tech workers with families. I tried so many times to give transit "one more try". The straw that broke my back was when they silently canceled 2 buses in a row for my route, on the coldest day of the year, for a route that has 20 minutes between buses. And my suburb…

You could choose to ride an e-bike instead.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#14

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mrtesthah wrote: post #13
qwerpy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seattle-area commuter here. I have to agree, transit seems mostly designed for people who don't value their time. Which don't tend to be the highly paid tech workers with families. I tried so many times to give transit "one more try". The straw that broke my back was when they silently canceled 2 buses in a row for my route, on the coldest day of the year, for a route that has 20 minutes between buses. And my suburb…

You could choose to ride an e-bike instead.

E-bikes are great in Seattle until they are stolen. Bike theft is the one single issue that is driving down bike ridership in the city, since police and the city government don't really care about it.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#16

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #6
pylua wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s an argument in Atlanta that mass transit hasn’t expanded more outwards because it tends to bring in more problems in terms of people. I think people are starting to change on this, but the cost would now be massive,

Atlanta's one huge success with transit that it doesn't get enough credit for is that it connects directly to the airport. So many other cities with "better" transit have complex schemes of switching between different buses operated by the airport authority and the city before you can get to the main system. In Atlanta you simply go over to baggage claim and the train is right there. Too bad they screwed this up when…

Portland, Salt Lake City have pretty good connections. Seattle also if you don't mind walking through the parking garage (often security will snake back to the lightrail station, you know you are in for a bad day). SFO has Bart to the airport, Caltrain is also possible but you have to connect to Bart for one station. I admit that I've been to SFO a few times and have never bothered taking Bart (in contrast, I always take Max from PDX).

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#18

Post by yellow_postit »

qwerpy wrote: post #12
infotainment wrote: post #2

I think the biggest problem is attitude; in the US, transit is largely viewed as a welfare program for poor people who are not (yet) able to afford cars. To put it in HN terms, Americans see it like a deprecated API; something you're obligated to support somewhat, but only until your users migrate off of it. If you look at the Honolulu transit project (Formerly HART, now called Skyline), I think it shows everything w…

Seattle-area commuter here. I have to agree, transit seems mostly designed for people who don't value their time. Which don't tend to be the highly paid tech workers with families. I tried so many times to give transit "one more try". The straw that broke my back was when they silently canceled 2 buses in a row for my route, on the coldest day of the year, for a route that has 20 minutes between buses. And my suburb…

Seattle making the Link a chore to take to and from the airport is a perennial disappointment — painfully slow.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#19

Post by Empact »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #14
mrtesthah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could choose to ride an e-bike instead.

E-bikes are great in Seattle until they are stolen. Bike theft is the one single issue that is driving down bike ridership in the city, since police and the city government don't really care about it.

There are various ways to hide an airtag on a bike. Consequences are the way to deter thieves.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to build quality transit?

#20

Post by SoftTalker »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #6
pylua wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s an argument in Atlanta that mass transit hasn’t expanded more outwards because it tends to bring in more problems in terms of people. I think people are starting to change on this, but the cost would now be massive,

Atlanta's one huge success with transit that it doesn't get enough credit for is that it connects directly to the airport. So many other cities with "better" transit have complex schemes of switching between different buses operated by the airport authority and the city before you can get to the main system. In Atlanta you simply go over to baggage claim and the train is right there. Too bad they screwed this up when…

Chicago is like that. Both O'Hare and Midway have CTA trains directly into the terminal.
Post reply on HN