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

61–70 of 142 posts

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

#61

Post by acchow »

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…

> transit is largely viewed as a welfare program for poor people who are not (yet) able to afford cars.

In most of the US, transit riders can’t wait to be able to afford a car and get out of transit. For good reason: the transit experience for them is terrible

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

#62

Post by shiroiushi »

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…

In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. And their all-suburban cities aren't dense enough to make it work economically or practically anyway: everything is just too far apart.

Finally, the largest transit system in the world isn't in China, it's in Tokyo, Japan (though to be fair, it isn't really a single system since it's run by many different companies).

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

#63

Post by saratogacx »

sakras wrote: post #50
techsupporter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's for a few reasons, let's see if I remember them all from the run-up to the Sound Transit 2 vote in 2008: Mercer Island exists and has political clout (even though they tried to use that clout to force Sound Transit to not use the express lanes on I-90) and would demand a station no matter what. Running across a floating bridge is hard enough and the Governor Albert Rosellini Bridge (SR 520 Floating Bridge to the…

Wow I didn’t know the old bridge was such a nightmare. This also makes me wonder why this line only opened now, if it was voted on all the way back in 2008. I do usually take the 542 now, and it works well-enough, but it only comes every 30 minutes which is annoying.

ST put priority to going north through Cap hill and up to Northgate (where there used to be a mall). Prepping the I90 bridge took a long time (8 years ago they shut down the express lanes, after adding an HOV to the main bridge) so far from my recall.

It was scheduled to open a few months ago but early this year they found a fault with the rail supports on the bridge that was missed as they were put in during early COVID and didn't have the ability to get them inspected as well as normal. So for the next year you've got Redmond to Bellevue with a missing link across the lake.

On the other side. I think that this month the main line from Northgate to Lynhood is going to open with several more stops so the system is expanding in a couple directions.

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

#64

Post by acchow »

nox101 wrote: post #40
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. T…

Hong Kong’s MTR is actually a publicly listed company. They are actually a real estate developer that happens to run and expand a subway system

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

#65

Post by sien »

jjcm wrote: post #56
emsign wrote: post #51

The US is a big country.

Australia around the same size, but has excellent public transportation (relative to the US).

Australian transport is still dominated by cars though.

https://chartingtransport.com/category/australian-cities/

At least 80% of surface passenger kilometers are in cars.

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

#66

Post by tomjen3 »

thayne wrote: post #21
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…

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.

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.

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

#67

Post by shiroiushi »

nox101 wrote: post #40
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. 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 operate train lines. Most of their profits come from the real estate, not the trains, and the trains are mainly a way to get people to go to the properties.

One big difference you can see between the US and Japan along these lines is the stations: in the US (and Canada from what I've seen), there's absolutely nothing inside the stations, just fare gates and a platform and train tracks. In Japan, the station has vending machines, shops, underground connections to nearby buildings, spaces for vendors to set up temporary stalls, etc. In the high-traffic stations, it's easy to stop in a convenience store, or in a Starbucks, before getting on your next train, and of course the train company is getting money from that in the form of rent. Some really big stations have larger shopping areas attached. But the US seems allergic to renting out commercial space in stations for some reason, and wants transit systems to get all their funding from fares and taxes.

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

#68

Post by Kbelicius »

shiroiushi wrote: post #62
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…

In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. And their all-suburban cities aren't dense enough to make it work economically or practically anyway: everything is just too far…

> In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere.

Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks. Do you think that those people would still want a car if they lived somewhere with a good public transit and walkability?

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

#69

Post by fragmede »

shiroiushi wrote: post #62
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…

In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. And their all-suburban cities aren't dense enough to make it work economically or practically anyway: everything is just too far…

> all-suburban cities aren't dense enough to make it work economically or practically

I'm not sure why we even call those cities, because they're not. They're big sprawling towns.

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

#70

Post by onecommentman »

no_wizard wrote: post #59
afavour wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While attitude plays a part I can’t help but feel like ineptitude and broad corruption play a huge role as well. In NYC transit isn’t viewed the way you’re describing it, pretty much everyone takes it. And yet NYC’s system expands at a glacial pace. A good part of the reason is because everything costs so damn much. Part of that is everyone wanting a piece of the pie so the simplest, cheapest option is very rarely th…

NYC used to have Robert Moses backstopping builds. Like him or hate him, he got things built on a scale nobody has managed to achieve since. In fact a lot of the infrastructure and parks people take for granted today were Moses’ handiwork. I’m not suggesting that we need another Bob Moses, but he does prove there is some way to cut through the glacial movement of politics and bureaucracy

If the only person in 100 years to get things done in infrastructure in NYC was Bob Moses, then I think it’s time to admit that NYC needs another Bob Moses.
Post reply on HN