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

101–110 of 142 posts

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

#101

Post by thayne »

conductr wrote: post #49
thayne wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of a reinforcing cycle. Since public transit is terrible, everyone wants cars. Since everyone wants cars, there isn't a lot of interest in public transit.

Yep. It's chicken and egg problem. You have to invest so heavily before reaching a tipping point of it being a realistic alternative to cars for most American's. Only at that point does it make sense. Where as with cars, we've already made much of that investment. I know it has a high maintenance, economic, and ecologic burden but that's not what we've optimized for. We've optimized for complete freedom and autonomy…

Weather is even more of a problem in places that are colder. Walking and waiting outside is a tough proposition when it is well below freezing, and the sidewalks are covered in slippery ice or multiple feet of snow, and transit is likely to be cancelled or delayed.

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

#102

Post by thayne »

Jensson wrote: post #73
tomjen3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also a matter of politics. No amount of investment in public rail is going to make it so that disruptive elements are effectively removed to the same degree as in my car. That’s before we talk availability, comfort, etc. Other than subways, public transportation is always going to be subpar.

In public transit you can sit down and read something during the ride, but not in a car. So the further you go the more public transits advantage grows as the total effort doesn't go up with distance, it is much nicer to sit in public transit for an hour than drive for an hour.

For a adults, sure. As long as there aren't a lot of transfers, and it isn't significantly slower.

If you are traveling with young children though, public transit is terrible. Even if you ignore the hastle of getting the kids on the train or bus on time, and probably having to bring a stroller with you, keeping those children entertained while moderately quiet without disturbing the other riders too much is no small feat.

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

#103

Post by rickydroll »

fmobus wrote: post #84
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…

In comparison: my commuter train in Germany comes every 30 minutes (even a bit more often at peak), but travels at 160km/h. Door-to-door, it's about 20% quicker than driving, with no parking stress, no unpredictable highway conditions and I can even get some work done on the WiFi. Sure, there are issues with those trains sometimes, but it is really an easy decision.

I also experienced the same thing when traveling in Europe. When you're on the line and traveling from one stop to another, it's fast and easy. However, we discovered that most of the things we wanted to visit were nowhere near the transit line for medium distances; it was faster to take a bike and, for long distances, to drive.

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

#104

Post by rickydroll »

shiroiushi wrote: post #67
nox101 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Repeating myself, I believe that many countries find a good way to make train stations destinations in and of themsevles Japan, for instance, many train stations have small/medium/large shopping centers built on them. The train makes money not only by fares by but renting out the shops, running department stores, groceries stores, renting offices, apartments, etc... There's what I think is a positive feedback loop. T…

>Japan, for instance, many train stations have small/medium/large shopping centers built on them. The train makes money not only by fares by but renting out the shops, running department stores, groceries stores, renting offices, apartments, etc... There's what I think is a positive feedback loop.' Yes, many of the transit companies in Japan are really more accurately described as real estate companies that own and o…

How does Japan deal with the convenience tax, that is, stores within a train station charging more for the same product than stores half a mile away? I remember passing through Portland Airport a few years ago and seeing signs saying the stores in the airport were legally prohibited from charging more than the retail prices found elsewhere in the city.

Every time I go through a retail development in conjunction with transit of any sort, prices are higher, and I make a conscious decision not to spend any money there but instead go to more wallet-friendly places near where I live.

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

#105

Post by theamk »

genghisjahn wrote: post #34
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…

Public transit people don't value their time? I wonder about the people stuck on I-76 as I pass over them on the regional rail here in Philly. Sure I deal with a late train now and then. But those people deal with center city traffic every day twice a day.

If the transit is faster that driving for you, then pretty sure you in the minority.

You have to get all the conditions just right for this to be the case

- You have to live next to the train (or next to a frequent bus which takes you to the train)

- You have to have a train going to the approximate right direction

- You have to work in place next to the train (or next to a frequent bus)

- Your work place is OK with you coming in late every once in a while, and your home life is OK with you coming back late every once in a while.

As long as you have a high-demand profession, plenty of potential workplaces and you are not on the fixed schedule, you can be picky and and choose next to transit - but many people don't.

Same goes with place to live - in my region you choose 2 of (inexpensive, next to transit, good public schools). If you have no kids, trains maybe faster for you, but if you want good public school your public transit commute turns super long.

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

#106

Post by HDThoreaun »

Empact wrote: post #19
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cops here in Chicago will not do anything about bike thefts. Multiple cases of vigilantes getting arrested after they took the law into their own hands when cops wouldnt retrieve their airtagged bike.

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

#107

Post by HDThoreaun »

Jensson wrote: post #73
tomjen3 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also a matter of politics. No amount of investment in public rail is going to make it so that disruptive elements are effectively removed to the same degree as in my car. That’s before we talk availability, comfort, etc. Other than subways, public transportation is always going to be subpar.

In public transit you can sit down and read something during the ride, but not in a car. So the further you go the more public transits advantage grows as the total effort doesn't go up with distance, it is much nicer to sit in public transit for an hour than drive for an hour.

> it is much nicer to sit in public transit for an hour than drive for an hour.

I agree but the vast majority of people i speak to do not. They would much rather listen to a podcast or music than deal with the crazy people on public transit.

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

#108

Post by HDThoreaun »

infotainment wrote: post #35
giantg2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those mandates are due to the market forces. Go ahead and build a building without parking. Tenants or customers are going to bring their cars anyways and try to find street parking, or they'll go somewhere else. If you make it inconvenient for car and the other option is inconvenient public transit, then people will just look for alternative housing or stores that are more convenient.

Why not just let market forces handle that then? If no one is going to go to my shop with no parking, that's fine. Let it get built, and then let it die due to lack of business. No need for any heavy-handed mandates.

Parking is an externality. The surrounding businesses and residents get pissed when the new development takes "their" spots.

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

#109

Post by HDThoreaun »

nrr wrote: post #48
giantg2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those mandates are due to the market forces. Go ahead and build a building without parking. Tenants or customers are going to bring their cars anyways and try to find street parking, or they'll go somewhere else. If you make it inconvenient for car and the other option is inconvenient public transit, then people will just look for alternative housing or stores that are more convenient.

Is this true? This doesn't jive with my lived experience, particularly when you consider walkability/wheelability. The suburban shopping mall, oddly enough, is something of a counterexample. People in aggregate will easily put up with the agony of walking half a mile from a parking space, and extrapolating to a setting more urban, this is roughly what downtown St. Louis around Busch Stadium is like. The MetroLink isn…

> agony of walking half a mile from a parking space

I think a lot of people actually enjoy waking through malls.

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

#110

Post by HDThoreaun »

rayval wrote: post #57

The article mentions how global cities outside the US are building out urban rail systems. Here's some more detail about China, which has the two largest transit systems in the world: Shanghai and Beijing. In 1993, Shanghai had one line running 2.7 miles with 4 stations. Less than 30 years later, the system had 15 lines, 500 miles of track, and 500 stations. [1] And in that same time frame, the Beijing subway system…

> China demonstrates that, even with small GDP

China's public transit success was because of their small gdp per capita, not in spite of it. Their developing economy gave them labor at slave wages and allowed the government to just bulldoze peoples houses without much backlash. Not having those things are the biggest problems the US faces when it comes to building infrastructure.

Post reply on HN