71–80 of 142 posts
Public transit does not need to turn a profit, it's a public service. It must provide a service. It is already paid off.
"... but muh capitalism brought me the iPhone!"
Yeah, what about being able to walk your fucking neighborhood though?
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?
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.
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.
Has the author of this article ever driven across the US? It takes days and days. The US is huge; it makes absolutely no sense to build mass transit connecting that many places where people live when it's so uneconomical. The US isn't China; the government can't just decree that something happen.
This seems like a plug for a book than anything with a definitive answer. The pull quote near the end of the article implies that the rest of the world has simply caught up and is pressing forward while the US has simply stopped. I was in Florence not long ago and they are building out a very impressive light-rail network [1]. Twenty years ago a similarly ambitious network was planned in Cincinnati, OH and it was vot…
Many urban transportation types and city planners in general give off a culty, can-I-tell-you-about-my-Lord-and-Savior-Mass-Transit vibe that is very off-putting to many, if not most Americans. Their writings gloss over the practical issues of American weather, last-mile, families with children, lugging home shopping, aging…along with deprecating any personal valuations of saving time, spontaneity, avoiding unpleasant interactions, carrying your large purchases with you…. You ignore my real world, lived experience in your screeds, I ignore you. And so they shout into the void.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 somewh…
Yes, I really do. You can see it in comments here on HN and any other place the transit-vs-cars discussion comes up and Americans are involved. Sure, there's some Americans who'd really like to live someplace with good public transit and walkability, but don't be fooled: most Americans (IMO) just aren't like this and really do want to stick with their car-based lifestyle. If most Americans were like you say, there'd be a huge exodus of Americans moving to Europe.
Has the author of this article ever driven across the US? It takes days and days. The US is huge; it makes absolutely no sense to build mass transit connecting that many places where people live when it's so uneconomical. The US isn't China; the government can't just decree that something happen.
The states along the coasts aren't huge (they are roughly like large European countries) and there isn't good public transit there either compared to the rest of the first world, and that is where most people live.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 somewh…
Now it is true that age 18-45 healthy childless commuters living in small apartments in safe neighborhoods who go to the same few locations all their lives (should we call them the privileged ones, the boring ones?)…they may get by comfortably without a car. But they’d still want one.
Because the people who would use public transit are not politically relevant.
That's begging the question isn't it? In places with quality transit, even the creme de la creme are riding it.