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

31–40 of 142 posts

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

#31

Post by meroes »

I was incredibly lucky the smallish town (40k pop) I went to college in had some remarkably good transportation I had never seen before. There was a bus that cost $.50 per ride circa 2010 and went to about a dozen locations within 20 miles, two different shopping centers (their main attractions being Walmarts but still), the university, the community college, several neighborhoods, and downtown locations, among a few others. Second there was a rental car option through the university where anyone with a drivers license and and a debit or credit card could use it (eg you didn’t have to be 25 or have a credit card). You could reserve time slots in advance online, and it was only $5 and hour or so. There were multiple cars.

The bus eventually went up to $1 per ride but I still think about these two options and wish my town had something like it. With a few small improvements I don’t see why we can’t reasonably subsidize these relatively cheap options in most towns/small cities. The rental car one would be harder, but even the bus would suffice. It notably didn’t stop at any grocery stores, only Walmarts so that’s another thing to improve. But I’d give up my car in a second for that bus back home.

I’m not even sure if this is still their active website http://0060325.netsolhost.com/about.htm but it gives you a picture of what I’m talking about. There’s either another service or a replacement that is $2.00 instead of $1.00 that goes by DCT from what I can tell. I don’t live there anymore so hard to know the current setup. I’m really underselling how good that bus was/is.

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

#32

Post by giantg2 »

infotainment wrote: post #30
giantg2 wrote: post #26

The heart of the problem is that cars became popular for the majority of the people due to freedom and convenience, causing most of the infrastructure to focus on them. The existing public transit saw worse service and problems such as crime or cleanliness. New projects become more difficult and costly to build, and were hijacked for political causes. Willingness to fund even the existing projects fell. Nobody wants…

It's not just market forces though; most municipalities in the US legally mandate a focus on cars. For example, most downtown areas in the US are pre-existing, as they're largely illegal to build today due to mandatory off-street parking minimums among other onerous requirements.

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.

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

#34

Post by genghisjahn »

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…

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.

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

#35

Post by infotainment »

giantg2 wrote: post #32
infotainment wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just market forces though; most municipalities in the US legally mandate a focus on cars. For example, most downtown areas in the US are pre-existing, as they're largely illegal to build today due to mandatory off-street parking minimums among other onerous requirements.

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.

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

#36

Post by lmm »

dado3212 wrote: post #4
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…

Why is this unique to America? Why doesn’t this apply to the UK?

In the UK anyone who matters lives or at least works in London, which has always had decent transit and has been gradually, incrementally nudging cars out of the centre for about two decades now (congestion charge, ULEZ, gradual pedestrianization of very central parts) as well as improving the alternatives (crossrail, actually decent cycle routes). Part of it is probably simply that London never completely stopped building new transit for too long; as much as UK people complain about transit development happening in fits and starts, there's always been a sufficiently new and shiny line to point to as a success and an example of how transit should be (Victoria, JLE, DLR, crossrail). But I suspect it's mostly just not having your expectations set by a largely LA-based media.

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

#37

Post by vundercind »

giantg2 wrote: post #26

The heart of the problem is that cars became popular for the majority of the people due to freedom and convenience, causing most of the infrastructure to focus on them. The existing public transit saw worse service and problems such as crime or cleanliness. New projects become more difficult and costly to build, and were hijacked for political causes. Willingness to fund even the existing projects fell. Nobody wants…

… and building for car-centric zoning and infrastructure makes all of walking, bicycling, public transit, and automobile travel a ton worse and/or more expensive, forming a harmful feedback loop. At first the cars were freedom. Now they’re cages. That you’re forced to buy. And not even for much benefit.

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

#38

Post by janalsncm »

My question is, who is constructing these rail systems in each of the countries? My understanding was that Chinese companies had built a lot of the biggest subway systems in various cities from Kiev to Singapore.

For political reasons that would be untenable in the US. Therefore we have to pay full price to build a thing we’re not good at building and don’t have the ramped up supply chains to support. If there’s only one company left that builds a component you need, guess what? You pay whatever they ask.

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

#39

Post by codeangler »

Context: this is a copy I posted r/boulder some years ago to people's wish for ( long promised) rail to Denver.

I commuted to Denver daily from Boulder, CO for three years and never drove during that time.

My shortlist of why I only want bus service to Boulder County ( for reference I typically pick up the bus at Table Mesa).

I only moved to Boulder in 2009 so I know I haven't carried as much tax burden as some people who "dream of light rail to Denver" but I'm very very happy with the FlatIron Flyers.

1. Buses can adapt to weather conditions

- Frequently coworkers training up from the tech center were 10x more likely to have issues with trains when the weather was icy, during the three years that I compiled this list of why I prefer buses.

2.Buses can adapt to other buses on the same route failing

- the RTD train infrastructure has very few places that light rail can pass one another so it doesn't matter if your train is working if the one ahead of your fails

3. Buses do not have routes altered/closed for maintenance

- when I would take the light rail to the company's Parker office or visiting friends it was surprising to have to get off and catch a bus around a section of rail under repair.

- I acknowledge that sometimes specific stops can be closed or moved but rarely is a whole section down and require alternate solutions (i.e. deboarding the train to board a bus to deboard on the other side of maintenance and board a new train)

4. Buses have express options.

- see the comment above regarding the few places that RTD rails can pass other trains

- note when the W line opened the express bus routes were removed, I think that was also true with another line but I can't remember. My favorite part of this is the coworkers I know who used that route started driving because the train was significantly longer commute times.

5. Buses typically have storage for up to six bikes per vehicle and don't block entries of others

- as an avid bike-the-final-mile commuter having storage for bikes that don't hinder other passengers boarding or exiting is nice (if you want to complain that it sometimes means staying at a few stops longer go ahead)

6. Buses Can turn over quicker at end of the line

- waiting for the E Line to swap directions at union station was comically slow when compared to catching the FF2 that just dropped off people and pulled around to pick up.

7. Buses can reroute around accidents that happen.

- E line and other northbound rail had to stop because of a car accident on the I-25 on the other side of a jersey wall where someone died. But the law says all traffic must be stopped from crossing an area of a certain diameter from the accident scene. So the next train had to stop. No place for passengers to deboard in the middle of the railway and blocked trains behind it.

- See comment above where other trains would be impacted as well

8. IMO, The payment and boarding method is a better User experience on the bus.

- this was more true before the mobile app could hold an annual pass

9. I'm sure I could come up with more reasons.

- oh, I'd rather take the AB to the airport than the A-train (sheesh that is a long train ride for such a short distance)

- oh, someone just mentioned the "rich people lane" yes, the bus uses the HOV lane! How great.

10. Air circulation is better inter city buses

When my office opens I'll return to bike/bus commuting. It is a bummer that during covid the express buses have stopped but understandable. The few times that I have bused in during 2020 the added time of FF1 was noticeable. Typically bike/express-bus takes me 50minutes house door to office door

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

#40

Post by nox101 »

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…

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.

That's clearly not the only way to do it but it might be a way in the USA? because treating it as a public service just makes it a political tax burden. Something to be cut, under funded, etc....

Los Angeles used to have one of the largest public transit systems. Over 1000 miles of track (compare to NYC 650 miles?) and tons of stations. Most of it was built commercially to sell housing. According to this documentary it worked, until the deals they'd made with the cities to maintain the roads the trains went down ended up costing too much money.

https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwar...

This video also shows two extensive train systems from past L.A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfUFhchIlM

It feels like in Japan, they kind of solved that issue by letting the train companies run their stations as retail/office spaces and all the other stuff mentioned above.

I think Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong probably have government based public transportation but it feels like they've managed to turned many stations into commerce hubs at least.

Post reply on HN