Slashdot Mirror


Why Is American Mass Transit So Bad? It's a Long Story. (citylab.com)

Jonathan English, writing for City Lab: One hundred years ago, the United States had a public transportation system that was the envy of the world. Today, outside a few major urban centers, it is barely on life support. Even in New York City, subway ridership is well below its 1946 peak. Annual per capita transit trips in the U.S. plummeted from 115.8 in 1950 to 36.1 in 1970, where they have roughly remained since, even as population has grown.

This has not happened in much of the rest of the world. While a decline in transit use in the face of fierce competition from the private automobile throughout the 20th century was inevitable, near-total collapse was not. At the turn of the 20th century, when transit companies' only competition were the legs of a person or a horse, they worked reasonably well, even if they faced challenges. Once cars arrived, nearly every U.S. transit agency slashed service to cut costs, instead of improving service to stay competitive. This drove even more riders away, producing a vicious cycle that led to the point where today, few Americans with a viable alternative ride buses or trains.

Now, when the federal government steps in to provide funding, it is limited to big capital projects. (Under the Trump administration, even those funds are in question.) Operations -- the actual running of buses and trains frequently enough to appeal to people with an alternative -- are perpetually starved for cash. Even transit advocates have internalized the idea that transit cannot be successful outside the highest-density urban centers. And it very rarely is.

463 comments

  1. It's simple.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:It's simple.. by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      Fleets of on-demand, self-driving electric cars are the future.

    2. Re:It's simple.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It IS simple.

      Population density.

      Yards kill mass transit. Which works for us.

      We can vote with our feet, but the social engineers don't like how we vote. Fuck them, right in the ear.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powerful people don't shop at Costco, therefore there are very few Costco's. Oh, wait...

    4. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The personal angle is strong as well as the blindness to the position of the fellow citizen. It's the same issue when a society launches its social services and mass transit payments via smart phones and then the officials and politicians wonder what went wrong when the nearly immobile pensioner are rioting outside of the parliament.

    5. Re:It's simple.. by imgod2u · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This argument never makes sense. Sure, I shouldn't expect mass transit from SF to Wichita. But just within CA, the areas of SF and LA alone have the population density equal to that of Germany (between Munich and Berlin or Bohn, for example).

      Ditto for NYC and Boston, which are very similar to that of Tokyo and Kyoto (both in distance between, population density within the city as well as rural areas in between).

      The reason is nothing more than politics. And it would seem the ultra-liberal politicians of CA and NYC/MA aren't any better at adopting mass transit (despite the appeals to how well Europe or Japan does things as well as concern for greenhouse gas) compared to the ultra-conservative politicians of TX.

    6. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when they do, it miraculously works.

    7. Re:It's simple.. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      Powerful people don't use grocery stores either, yet they seem to work well.

    8. Re:It's simple.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      SF and LA have moderate population density with a reasonably high density core (more SF). But they also have a huge empty space between them (that you could lose Germany in).

      SF also has working mass transit.

      Tokyo is 2,000 km^2, Boston is 130 km ^ 2. The core of 'Boston' has a 20% lower population density than the entire Tokyo prefecture. In other words 'Bullshit on you'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:It's simple.. by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IN CA, Metrolink already has moved to apps or physical kiosks for payment only, cant do it over the web at all. Its absolutely disgusting. I had to call to find how much a monthly pass was between two points because they locked that info up in the app and removed it form the web. Public infrastructure should not be distributing exes ONLY to closed stores. There is absolutely no reason for public infrastructure to deploy apps to closed stores. We are on a terrible road.

      --
      Good-bye
    10. Re:It's simple.. by caseih · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with mass transit? People simply die without access to affordable food. Hence grocery stores for most people, catering for the rich people, and meal ingredient delivery stores for the upper middle class. Doesn't relate at all to the economics and politics of mass transit.

    11. Re: It's simple.. by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Waiting for technology is the sign of failure of planning and thought.

      Self driving cars are 20-30 years away. Wide scale deployment of waymos level 4 service is 10-15 years away.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:It's simple.. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      Partly true, but in the past there were plenty of places that had streetcars as public transit. The problem was, streetcars competed with well, cars, so the powerful car lobby pretty much lobbied to get streetcar tracks ripped up so people would buy cars.

      Naturally, as streetcars got more difficult to use, people bought cars and drove.

      There was a time when basically everyone used "public transit" because only the very rich could own a car. Yes, cheaper cars helped, but people can be hard to change (especially since driving wasn't much faster than public transit anyways)

    13. Re: It's simple.. by jonsmirl · · Score: 0

      We've already failed. It is hopeless that mass transit can get fixed in less than 30 years, so self-driving cars is the solution.

    14. Re:It's simple.. by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...The reason is nothing more than politics. And it would seem the ultra-liberal politicians of CA and NYC/MA aren't any better at adopting mass transit....

      Actually, New York City and Boston are two cities in the US where a large number of people DO use public transportation. The NY Subway and the Boston T are both old and both in need of upgrading, but they are both in every day use by ordinary people. If you want to list liberal cities that don't have good public transportation, I'd go with LA and Seattle.

      (Although, to be fair, LA actually does have a metro, IF you happen to live near a stop and only want to go somewhere near a stop.)

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    15. Re:It's simple.. by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      > What does that have to do with mass transit? People simply die without access to affordable food. Hence grocery stores for most people ...which they get to and from using transit. They also use transit to get to and from work, which they do to earn money to buy those groceries in the first place. So as dumb as the argument is, the OP's argument is even dumber.
      =Smidge=

    16. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SF and LA have moderate population density with a reasonably high density core (more SF). But they also have a huge empty space between them (that you could lose Germany in).

      Germany is larger than the space between those cities. And, there is a reasonably dense population most of the way between them if you go through the central valley instead of along the coast. Less direct, but it would service a far greater population.

    17. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean fleets of privately owned self-driving electric cars, that will increase congestion since everyone will still be out of rush hour, but now with additional induced demand.

    18. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ignoring General Motors and other automotive corporations buying and destroying light rail systems, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/what-ever-happened-to-pub_b_633585.html

    19. Re:It's simple.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You have never driven down I-5. Never. It's obvious.

      I exaggerate slightly, Germany is 500 miles, LA to SF is 400.

      Also you ignore the fact you are _wrong_ about Boston vs Tokyo. I bet you will repeat the claim again, next time this comes up.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:It's simple.. by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      What does that have to do with mass transit? People simply die without access to affordable food. Hence grocery stores for most people, catering for the rich people, and meal ingredient delivery stores for the upper middle class. Doesn't relate at all to the economics and politics of mass transit.

      If you look at what the stores actually stock, it is well beyond purely survival level. They provide what the market wants. What the market does not want is poor quality mass transit. If it did, someone would provide it. What it wants is easy and directed individual transit. Which is what Uber, Lyft, and traditional Taxis provide. And they are doing very well at it.

    21. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NYC was pretty cool. During rush hour, you can be on the same subway car with homeless people and Wall Street barons.

      LA's biggest issue is the sprawl and traffic congestion makes it difficult. I have a 12 mile commute, but it takes 2 trains and a bus, and takes 90 minutes on average. A car takes about 45-60 minutes, and a motorcycle about 25-45 minutes (lane splitting), depending upon time of day. Parking can be another concern (20 minute commute, 20 minutes of circling around trying to find a place to fucking park). I ride a motorcycle, but people literally try to kill you in how fucking stupid they drive out here. Check your mirrors before changing lanes? Fuck that, die, mother fucker.

    22. Re:It's simple.. by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Insightful

      GM paid to have trolley car tracks ripped out. Some cities were built with viable ways to expand mass transportation, and if they didn't they now face excruciating costs in buying easements, right of way, with a cost per mile that's gruesome.

      Trains and trolleys used to link the US in astounding ways. The airlines wanted a taste of that. So did the auto industry. Train tracks became urban trails. Who's going to vote to rip up urban trails?

      Then it became a class and race crisis, where people didn't want to have to ride with the poor, the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid, white people traveling with black people and Latinos. The rich white folk could all afford cars and the fuel, taxes, and insurance. The banks and auto makers made lots of dough financing driving by yourself. So did the oil companies. Public transportation in many areas suffered, just as the poor suffer today-- no one wants to subsidize those the needs poor people or pay the a living wage.

      I take public transport wherever/whenever I can because it's cheaper and I don't have to drive. I can do my phone surfing, or just relax. Someone else is driving and they're usually good. I can't see a good reason to fly on the NE corridor at all. Between regional rail and Uber/Lyft, it doesn't make sense.

      Summary: it's a class/race/economics/social-shunning problem, not to mention the financing underneath is controlled by people that never use it.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    23. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big changes require big government's big money, which attracts big rats.

    24. Re:It's simple.. by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      It could be argued that mass transit benefits the powerful because it provides a way to transport workers into their factories and offices. Personal transportation for the masses is just not economically feasible in the high-density institutions that are most efficient for capitalism. You would have to spend more in salaries to enable workers to pay the transportation costs.

      Spend some time in Tokyo, Seoul, or Manhattan to see how it works. Or, for that matter, the Pentagon.

      But of course the typical MAGA voter thinks that mass transportation is adopting communism or something like that so we don't get to have it.

    25. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more than a million people a day ride the LA metro system. that's not counting metrolink or other transit systems in LA county. yes NYC is higher but it doesn't mean LA is "not good" since LA's numbers are the same as boston's.

      seattle is more than 400k a day.

      you can't extrapolate your limited experience to say they don't have good public transit.

      or talk out your ass, I don't care.

    26. Re:It's simple.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mass transit is un-American. You are supposed to own your own car, be free and self sufficient. Relying on others to get around is a failure.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe and Japan, many professionals commute by rail at the beginning and end of the week and have a small apartment in the city. They spend the weekend at their actual home in less dense, more desirable areas. I would not consider that a healthy lifestyle choice to be away from family for the work week.

      Mass transit fails many because it's not point to point. It doesn't allow for doing various errands between point A and point B. Japan and Europe were torn apart during WWII. People didn't have the luxury of owning cars. Whereas the US was not bombed and torn apart. There was a post war economic boom. The independence of the automobile was much more obtainable for all. It wasn't a social or political construct that created the differences, it was economics. Public transportation is not convenient nor desirable when other options exist.

    28. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Street cars also took up road space and created more traffic issues for a slow moving street car. It was less efficient than car with elevated rail and subway.

    29. Re:It's simple.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, why park if you can make it drive around forever?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    30. Re: It's simple.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Waiting for technology is the sign of failure of planning and thought.

      Assuming technology won't improve is an even bigger failure. Projects like California's $100B train will take decades to finish, yet are focused on fixing yesterday's problems.

    31. Re:It's simple.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      But all stores keep people powerful. Mass transit doesn't do that either.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    32. Re:It's simple.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The powerful know that their workers need the job. They don't care about making it more convenient to get there.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    33. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more than a million people a day ride the LA metro system. that's not counting metrolink or other transit systems in LA county. yes NYC is higher but it doesn't mean LA is "not good" since LA's numbers are the same as boston's.

      But LA has six times the population of Boston. If the number of people riding the metro is "the same as boston's", that means it has 17% of the ridership.

      seattle is more than 400k a day.

      And Boston has 1.3 million. Even though Seattle is bigger, Boston has over three times the number of riders.

      you can't extrapolate your limited experience to say they don't have good public transit.
      or talk out your ass, I don't care.

    34. Re:It's simple.. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      This article is not entirely accurate, as regional transit agencies like Sound Transit in Seattle Washington is seeing record breaking growth in ridership.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    35. Re:It's simple.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0, Troll

      Self-driving cars can drive in tight "platoons" that greatly increase the carrying capacity of roads. They can anticipate traffic movement and light changes, so they smooth the flow of traffic. So, no, congestion won't get worse, because congestion is a result of human behavior.

      Also, the last several times I have used Lyft, there was an option to share the ride, in exchange for a 20-30% discount. I clicked on it every time. If I was in my own car, I would have driven alone. So it is not at all clear that SDCs will mean more cars on the road. Small self -driving vans carrying 6-8 people can replace both buses and many cars.

    36. Re:It's simple.. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you want to list liberal cities that don't have good public transportation, I'd go with LA and Seattle.

      Transit use in Seattle is growing at an absurd rate - something like 40% of all downtown workers ride transit now. Light rail has been the primary driver in the shift.

      For a long time Seattle relied totally on a bus system. Which is silly - busses travel the same roads as cars, and get stuck in the same traffic messes. They finally wised up and started creating dedicated bus lanes... and, in some cases, bus-only roads.

      But the real game changer has been light rail. Quite expensive to build, but it’s reliable and moves lots of people.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    37. Re:It's simple.. by registrations_suck · · Score: 0

      Self-driving cars can drive in tight "platoons" that greatly increase the carrying capacity of roads.

      We call that "bumper to bumper" traffic. It is neither innovative nor desirable.

    38. Re: It's simple.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We've already failed. It is hopeless that mass transit can get fixed in less than 30 years, so self-driving cars is the solution.

      Every consider that the modern person just doesn't want to ride mass transit for their daily lives?

      Even if it was clean, on time and lacked smelly bums.....why would I choose public transportation when I can more easily and directly have door-to-door services with my own car?

      Not to mention, in my own car, I keep my own stuff it in and don't have to load/unload all the time, I have my radio programmed in, I keep some daily possessions in there, etc.

      Unless you are down and out with regards to money, why would anyone choose it?

      The times I come close to wanting to go somewhere and not drive or park....I uber. Again, it is door-to-door.

      This is especially important when there is inclement weather, or when, like here, it is fscking 95F out with 98% humidity. If you're dressed at all to look nice for work, etc, you don't wanna be sweating your ass off by the time you get to work.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    39. Re:It's simple.. by Littleman_TAMU · · Score: 1

      >But of course the typical MAGA voter thinks that mass transportation is adopting communism or something like that so we don't get to have it.

      Yes, blame *those* people over *there*. You know much better than them. Clearly you're much smarter.

      Perhaps you could consider that people in rural areas don't see the need for their state or county taxes to increase to benefit city dwellers. There are perfectly logical economic and other reasons why people oppose mass transit none of which are because it's seen as "communism or something like that".

      It's very easy to spend someone else's money. If it's so obviously better for capitalism that mass transit is better in population dense areas, then you should be able to make a killing helping businesses get it implemented.

    40. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to be clear, here: it looks like you are misinterpreting his sentence:
      "Ditto for NYC and Boston, which are very similar to that of Tokyo and Kyoto..."

      He is obviously equating Boston with Kyoto, and NYC with Tokyo.

    41. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't sharing those hipster taxis with the blacks and addicts I used to ride the bus with, I guarantee you that if that's what the checkbox meant then you'd never check it.

    42. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Bumper to bumper traffic on the highway with human drivers moves at 0-5 mph and the carrying capacity of the road is abysmally small.

      With self driving, closely packed cars can move at 75 mph and the capacity of the network is correspondingly increased.

      This requires dedicated lanes, or eventually removing human driven cars from the road network. Both these will happen, but it will take a long time to get there.

    43. Re:It's simple.. by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      eh not really. you can see celebs and power players on the subway all the time/

    44. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is absolutely no reason for public infrastructure to deploy apps to closed stores.

      Yes there is. That's what most people use now: mobile long ago passed traditional PCs as the way people get online.

      They are going where their customers are. At some point it stops being worth maintaining two separate things just for a tiny number who don't have access to one of them.

    45. Re:It's simple.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      closely packed cars can move at 75 mph and the capacity of the network is correspondingly increased

      Ah, so daily Cali traffic.

      This requires dedicated lanes, or eventually removing human driven cars from the road network.

      Not so much. I mean, your way lacks the daily collision, but it's hardly a requirement.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    46. Re:It's simple.. by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We also have NIMBYs. For example, BART wasn't allowed to go through the expensive Menlo Park so so there was no service to the south bay. Turns out the south bay became a hot item later where tons of people and the high paying jobs were, while S.F. slowly became more of a bedroom community. You plan for today but the result may not be as useful tomorrow. And tomorrow there will be no budget or capability to change. Also Menlo Park has not allowed expressways through the city, so there was often a fanout of autos coming off of the bridge.

      Now BART is going to the south bay but it's still complicated, it goes around the east bay so as to bypass Menlo Park. It will help a lot of people for sure but not as many as it could if it became a ring.

      Then there's the issue that it's not enough. To get to BART in the first place is tricky. There's park-and-ride which just means drive for awhile and then park in a high crime area before taking mass transit. Or you take a bus or light rail for an hour first. Plus the cost; still less than the cost of a car, but if you already have a car because you need it to go get groceries and take the kids to school then it's an added burden; especially with Cal-Train which is not cheap.

      On the bright side however, I see more and more higher density (and luxury) apartments being built very close to mass transit stops, BART, Light Rail, etc. These are no longer associated with poor communities. On the downside, many of those who can afford the luxury apartments seem to prefer Uber or other inefficient modes of transportation that defeat the purpose of mass transit.

      Overall, from what I've seen in many areas in the US, mass transit has these problems: sparse, does not go where you want to go, is slow and requires multiple changes, limited hours. Areas with high tax revenue are low density and don't want mass transit; areas with high density tend to have relatively low tax revenue and can't afford the mass transit or don't have the political clout.

    47. Re:It's simple.. by registrations_suck · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      Powerful people want a society enslaved and subservient to them (the Democrats don't even hide this agenda). A good mass transit system that would make people dependent on it to get around would further that goal. Just imagine if you couldn't go anywhere unless mass transit took you there, on a scheduled dictated by the powerful, and it tracked all of your comings and goings. That would be hugely beneficial that would be for "the powerful".

      It's THE PEOPLE who don't want it. I can tell you that personally, I wouldn't use it even for FREE, because it is inconvenient and unreliable. Hell, I don't think you could even pay me to use it, under present circumstances. Now, you can argue that even if I am right - if it were MADE convenient and it were MADE reliable, that people would want it. That would be true - until taxes were raised to cover the ENORMOUS expense involved to make that happen. Then they would say "fuck that!"

      Laying in mass transit can work, if you're starting from scratch (your nation was bombed out, and you never developed a car culture of significance). But trying to lay it in after the fact would be so expensive and so disruptive and so unpalatable from the confiscation of private property and wholesale city redesign that would be required, a fair portion of the population will resist it - and it's not the powerful, who, in fact, would stand to gain the most since as they would control it.

      If you want to do something for "the people" - promote motorcycle use every way you can. Less congestion, less parking required, etc. etc. etc. Yes, you can't drive them in the snow (easily), but if even 20% of the cars on the road commuting to work with one fucking person in them were replaced by motorcycles, that would be a huge win, for EVERYBODY.

    48. Re:It's simple.. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Truer words were never spoken.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    49. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are ignoring General Motors and other automotive corporations buying and destroying light rail systems, https://www.huffingtonpost.com...

      Everybody loves a good conspiracy theory
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    50. Re:It's simple.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      SF mass transit is essentially the bus system. BART has only 7 stops in SF. If you mean the wider Bay Area then mass transit is just as sparse except for buses and it rarely goes to where people work. Compare to Manhattan where you are almost always within walking distance to a subway station.

    51. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The powerful know that their workers need the job. They don't care about making it more convenient to get there.

      This is completely false. Every corporation looking to open up a location is concerned with the availability of quality employees within a reasonable commuting distance. Quality public transportation options weigh heavily into siting decisions.

    52. Re:It's simple.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's much easier and profitable to plop down a new Costco than to extend a rail line.

    53. Re:It's simple.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      But individual transit essentially does the opposite of what mass transit it supposed to do. They increase pollution and increase traffic congestion.

    54. Re:It's simple.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Also note that in Europe or Japan, using automobiles is relatively expensive because of higher fuel prices. This increases demand for mass transit as well as demand for more efficient and smaller vehicles. Cheap gas in the US means that the demand tends to be for bigger and more inefficient autos. When there have been gas price spikes in the US for more than a few months the sales of larger cars tend to decline.

    55. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *This message brought to you by OPEC.

    56. Re:It's simple.. by unimacs · · Score: 1

      Do you build your own roads? Refine your own gas or produce your own electricity?

      How much of your income, space, and time is devoted to your vehicles? How free are you if your vehicle breaks down or you simply can't afford one?

      We don't really think about it but we devote an absurd amount of our personal resources to our cars. Don't believe me? Look at the front of most modern suburban homes, and you'll see that one of the most prominent features is the garage. That's how important cars are to us.

      Relying on cars has not made us more free. We are slaves to them.

    57. Re:It's simple.. by bignetbuy · · Score: 0

      ... So, no, congestion won't get worse, because congestion is a result of human behavior...

      Wish I had some mod points for you. Well said. Too many people don't realize that simple fact that "stop and go" is a human problem - not a technology or engineering problem. We are sitting in traffic because the poor drivers in front of us follow too close, can't merge, can't say within the flow of traffic, don't signal, etc.

      We can try to engineer around the problem but as long as humans are at the wheel, congestion is a fact of life.

    58. Re:It's simple.. by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its outright wrong to push public transport accessibility onto CLOSED platforms. Those users can use the goddamn browser on their device if needed, there is a reason we spent so much time perfecting it.. Allowing this transition to closed platforms is absolutely insane and it shocks me i have to explain this on slashdot. It creates a barrier to entry to the most vulnerable people. Before you could at least go to the Library to access it. You cant put public infrastructure onto closed platforms.

      --
      Good-bye
    59. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been rather surprised at how far you can travel with mass transit in Seattle. However, if the source or destination is not a community hub then it gets really sketchy.

      There are just a lot of crazies that take long aimless loops.

      In the city I generally avoid it, but I am giving it a shot for my commute home. With express transports it has not been terrible.

    60. Re:It's simple.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      We call that "bumper to bumper" traffic. It is neither innovative nor desirable.

      No. Human "bumper to pumper" traffic averages one or more car length between cars, has a wide range of speeds as cars speed up and slow down in an "accordion effect", and ... most importantly ... humans react poorly when the traffic actually begins to clear, hesitating for many seconds before accelerating. 1000 cars, each adding 5 seconds of delay, and you have an hour long traffic jam.

      All of this is caused by human inattentiveness, lack of situational awareness, and slow reaction times. None of these apply to computers.

    61. Re:It's simple.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      Why? No seriously to get to the root cause of linear problems you just keep asking why until you find an answer. Powerful people not using mass transit isn't a root cause since just like the state of the transit system itself the USA is at odds with other countries in this regard.

    62. Re:It's simple.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It IS simple.

      Population density.

      If it were that simple major US cities would have transit systems comparable with Europe rather than being the butt end of jokes from around the world.

    63. Re: It's simple.. by mustafap · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's because the one car one person model is destroying the planet, and until we get rid of selfish people who think otherwise, we are in trouble

      --
      Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
    64. Re:It's simple.. by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you could consider that people in rural areas don't see the need for their state or county taxes to increase to benefit city dwellers. There are perfectly logical economic and other reasons why people oppose mass transit none of which are because it's seen as "communism or something like that"

      Like my city-boy's taxes are raised to pay for agribusiness subsidies? Oh, come on. You can do better than that.

      Reading your post almost makes me believe you have no idea where the market for the farmer's product is. Oh, wait...

    65. Re:It's simple.. by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      The powerful know that their workers need the job. They don't care about making it more convenient to get there.

      I suppose they don't care about how convenient. Maybe. If you want to argue that they don't care about costs then you and I part ways there.

    66. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet search disagrees with you.
      Boston: Boston has a density of 13,841 people per square mile (5,344/square kilometer)
      Tokyo: With a population density of 6,158 persons per square kilometer, Tokyo is the most densely populated prefecture in Japan.

      Substantially different sizes, I couldn't find anything for city core of Tokyo, or the area of greater Boston.

      http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/boston-population/
      http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/ENGLISH/ABOUT/HISTORY/history03.htm
      Two population density maps
      https://bostonography.com/2012/density/density2/
      https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1476-072X-10-26/MediaObjects/12942_2010_Article_423_Fig3_HTML.jpg

    67. Re:It's simple.. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 0

      Truer words were never spoken.

      Yeah but you're the kind of lazy un American traitor who rides on roads made by other people like you're some sort of filthy free-loading liberal. Until you make your own roads you can't claim to be free and unreliant on anyone else.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    68. Re:It's simple.. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Poe's law, my man, Poe's law.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    69. Re:It's simple.. by clodney · · Score: 2

      Hence grocery stores for most people ...which they get to and from using transit.

      I expect that using transit to get to and from a grocery store is only common in high density situations where either you don't have a car, or it is too expensive/inconvenient to park. Where I live people mostly drive to the store and stock up for a week at a time. In Europe or places like NYC, it is much more common to go to the store every day or two, so you don't need to manage 5 or 6 bags of groceries at a time.

      That is a cultural shift that is in some ways more difficult than taking transit to work, but one that becomes necessary if you envision not having a car at all, or only renting them by the hour or the day.

    70. Re: It's simple.. by sabri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if it was clean, on time and lacked smelly bums.

      But again, it isn't. While I was in the midst of moving, I had temporary accommodation in San Jose with a light rail station in front of my apartment. It was only 7 stops to get to work, where there was another station right in front of the building. I decided to give it a try.

      Long story short: it reminded my why I hate public transport. It's slower: my travel time doubled. I have to work on their schedule: I have to wait for a train to come. Is that going to be 10 minutes? Or perhaps 25? While it's either hot or supercold outside. It just sucks.

      And I didn't even mention the stupid rules they have:

      - I'm not allowed to eat or drink anything;
      - I can't have pepperspray on me;
      - Not that I have one, but even if I had a firearm and CCW permit I would not be allowed to carry it;

      Did I mention it's shitty expensive? Did I mention the amount of pandhandling bums? Did I mention the body odors of people from all over the world?

      No thanks, I'll take my private transportation. Public transportation sucks.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    71. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      proof. please.

    72. Re:It's simple.. by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      Powerful people love mass transit; no, not the ultra-wealthy ultra-powerful like Hillary, but educated white collar workers in major cities. That's why places like NYC, DC, and Boston have such extensive mass transit systems and why those systems tend to connect to the places where the elites congregate.

    73. Re:It's simple.. by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      But just within CA, the areas of SF and LA alone have the population density equal to that of Germany (between Munich and Berlin or Bohn, for example).

      And mass transit usage in Germany is still in the single digits.

      The reason is nothing more than politics.

      You bet it is. American voters are wondering why they should finance a government-sponsored ride for a few percent of the population already living in wealth and luxury in our cities.

    74. Re:It's simple.. by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      I've been reading about the tight platoons thing for a half century in continual articles published through Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Mechanics Illustrated, etc etc etc. Back in the day it was called car trains but was the same hackneyed notion which has never been proven to be feasible.

      --
      Have a Day!
    75. Re: It's simple.. by jwdb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless you are down and out with regards to money, why would anyone choose it?

      Avoiding traffic and the hassle of parking and maintenance. Because you have a disability (say, blindness), or a general dislike of driving. Because you want to sleep/read/... an extra half hour. Because you want to do your bit for global warming. Because that extra bit of walking it requires keeps you just a little bit healthier.

      Parking and traffic may be fine where you live, and I agree that walking in 95F/98% is unpleasant, but driving isn't the only solution and not everywhere has such problematic weather. Uber's fine on occasion, but not for regular use.

    76. Re: It's simple.. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't forget that it will be the most expensive, slowest, "high-speed" rail in the world when it's done.

      Thumbs up to that shit.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    77. Re:It's simple.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Same problem, a little closer, but still bullshit...NYC area is 790 km^2. Less than half Tokyo's. NYC _metro_area_ has an average density of 1800/km^2. About a third that of the Tokyo prefecture. NYC itself is dense as fuck, but note no cars.

      Kyoto has an area of 830 km^2 and a population density of 10k/km^2. Boston isn't even close, in size of population density.

      OPs claim is bullshit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    78. Re:It's simple.. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Bwaaaaaahahahahhahaha

      The "dense population most of the way" in the central valley is cows. Thousands and thousands of cows. And cows aren't allowed on the train.

      Here's a hint: drive through the central valley at night. The only light you'll see north of Bakersfield is from your own headlights, any tail lights in front of you, and the headlights of oncoming traffic on the other side of I-5.

      Other than that, you may as well be driving on the surface of the moon for all the "dense population" in the central valley. Is all of this population still practicing war blackouts from 1942?

      Short version: you're an idiot and have no idea what you're talking about.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    79. Re:It's simple.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Again: You want to compare a tiny core of one metro to the entire area of another. Still bullshit.

      NYC metro area (where there is data) average density is 1800/km^2.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    80. Re:It's simple.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1, Funny

      I guess it IS time for you to all start sucking each others dicks

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    81. Re: It's simple.. by pacija · · Score: 3, Informative

      Every consider that the modern person just doesn't want to ride mass transit for their daily lives?

      I can consider that avoidance of mass transit is what a lot of people do and personally like, but "modern" is not correct description of such behaviour. Plenty of modern people use mass transit.

    82. Re: It's simple.. by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every consider that the modern person just doesn't want to ride mass transit for their daily lives? Even if it was clean, on time and lacked smelly bums.....why would I choose public transportation when I can more easily and directly have door-to-door services with my own car?

      Lucky you. I live in Chicago and it would cost me something like $450 per month to park where I work downtown.

      Fortunately our public transit system is pretty good. I leave my car in the garage under my building and either walk 20 minutes to the train, or go to the corner and catch a bus. It's fantastic and it doesn't matter if I'm tired, drunk, high, whatever, it's a safe ride. My workplace is a block from the train stop and it's a 15 minute ride.

      Even with the walk I get in to work faster than I would if I drove and parked. Plus, I'm burning like an extra 300 calories a day.

    83. Re: It's simple.. by kiphat · · Score: 1

      I rode the BART in SF. I try to use public transit whenever/where ever I can. That BART, though... The fucking loudest train I've ever been on. They should really fix that!

    84. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People driving the Central Valley on route 99 have an entirely different experience than people driving I-5. It's crazy how built up it is from Bakersfield all the way to Fresno and beyond. The east side of the valley is getting sprawl like Southern California or the southern S.F. Bay Area.

      Even I-5 feels completely different from when I was a child. It used to feel as remote as some highway through the boonies of Nevada or Wyoming. Now, it seems more like route 99 did 20-30 years ago, except that it still has more non-irrigated areas.

      And, once you reach Stockton and take I-280/I-580 it is shocking. It used to feel empty from Modesto to Stockton to Livermore, but now that also seems to be filling in as sprawl. I keep wondering when a hill full of old windmills is going to turn into a hill full of townhouses.

    85. Re:It's simple.. by Nethead · · Score: 2

      I still think we should have gone with monorail. That was so stupid to get that far with it and then pull the plug.

      What ever happened to Dick Falkenbury?

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    86. Re: It's simple.. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yup, solid axles on the wheels, so on any turn one or both of them are scraping on the track. Also the trains go relatively fast compared to most subways which amplifies the noise, especially in tunnels.

    87. Re:It's simple.. by idji · · Score: 1

      That is not an answer - there are powerful people in Europe, London and New York, but there is still mass transit. Population Density, entitlement, attitudes to "common good" all contribute.

    88. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a nice example of the "appeal to the stone" fallacy!

    89. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powerful people push shitty at-grade light-rail projects on taxpayers because it's the most bang for the buck to build, but results in more people being killed by trains, and still has to contend with traffic.

      US (if not all of North America)'s transit is bad because it's mostly not rapid transit, it's simply shitty transit projects that people don't like to take because they're no faster than a car, and with "ride sharing" and taxi-on-demand type of services, they are obsolete already, and once driverless cars take off, there will never be a need for trains driven by humans.

      Automated Subways and Automated Elevated rail (including monorails) are the most bang for the buck when it comes to maintenance and accident prevention. But North American construction costs are ridiculous , often 10x that of their European counterparts. For 10 miles of subway, in the US you could get a functional 100mile long subway in any part of the EU.

    90. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass transit doesn't connect to the mansion developments where the elites who favor "country living" and fine horses live.

      Look man, some elites like living "in the city" and some like living "in the country." You can't claim they all choose the city!

    91. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transit costs, at most $5/day to take, your car costs $300 in maintenance and likely $200 in fuel per month. Taking the bus or subway is a no-brainer when it costs 1/3rd the amount a personal car does.

      It does come with two conditions however.

      A) You can only go where transit goes
      and
      B) You're at the mercy of transit capacity and scheduling, and this is the major downfall for why people don't take transit.

      Why would you be willing to spend 4 hours in transit to work at a shitty minimum wage job? Most people should not be this stupid, but companies in the big cities expect to get staff this stupid.

      At some point, a case has to be made for affordable housing to be in downtown cores for people to actually work at these minimum wage jobs, otherwise those jobs have to start paying the same amount a construction worker is paid.

    92. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and as for educated white collar people: same preferences. Some people value space over crowded living.

    93. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. When I was poor I lived near light rail in my city in case my card broke, I could take it to work and not lose my job while I gathered money to fix the car. But if the car worked, I always drove it, because the people who ride public transit are dirty, rude, and sometimes scary to boot. It was cheaper to ride public transit, but it took longer and the people experience was so terrible that I was willing to pay more to avoid it. Bottom line is that public transit is the choice of last resort. And now that I have enough money to fix my car, it's the choice of NO resort. I am not the only one who thinks so, as the transit agency is now LOWERING fees trying to get ridership up. It just sucks, no one cares, and I am not paying for you to ride transit with tax money, fund it yourself if it's so great.

    94. Re: It's simple.. by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      why would I choose public transportation

      So you can play on your phone instead of constantly making sure you're staying alive.

    95. Re: It's simple.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prove that it's destroying the planet, or STFU.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    96. Re:It's simple.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Laying in mass transit can work, if you're starting from scratch (your nation was bombed out, and you never developed a car culture of significance). But trying to lay it in after the fact would be so expensive and so disruptive and so unpalatable from the confiscation of private property and wholesale city redesign that would be required, a fair portion of the population will resist it - and it's not the powerful, who, in fact, would stand to gain the most since as they would control it.

      What does this have to do with America? We had public transportation in this country, and the auto and oil industries shut it down because it interfered with their profits. They bought up and shut down profitable public transportation systems, and public transportation has never recovered from their assault.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    97. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a theory, but an actual conspiracy... look it up in a flippin dictionary if you do not know what the word means in the title of the wikipedia article you linked to:

      The General Motors streetcar conspiracy refers to convictions of General Motors (GM) and other companies for monopolizing the sale of buses and supplies to National City Lines (NCL) and its subsidiaries, and to allegations that this was part of a deliberate plot to purchase and dismantle streetcar systems in many cities in the United States as an attempt to monopolize surface transportation.

    98. Re:It's simple.. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      By borough:
      Manhattan 27,826 persons per sq. km.
      The Bronx 13,231 persons per sq. km.
      Brooklyn 14,649 persons per sq. km.
      Queens 8,354 persons per sq. km.
      Staten Island 3,132 persons per sq. km.
      City of N.Y. 10,947 persons per sq. km.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_York_City (wikipedia, based on current United States Census Bureau data.)

      The "New York Metropolitan Area" is a bogus concept, including land as far as 100 miles from Manhattan.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    99. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For mass transit to work and be as convenient you need 24h busses every 15-30m during the day and hourly at night with stops about every 0.5-1 km. This works if the government (aka taxes) pays for it but is also a massive waste of fuel and taxpayers money as near empty busses drive around. You need at least 15% capacity on EVERY bus to make it compete with cars AND to pay for a driver.

      I used mass transit for commute in Europe, it's great but then you also see the waste when you see the 10am train transporting 5 passengers and 5 crew.

    100. Re: It's simple.. by iwbcman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spoken like a true American.

      Your lack of experience of what modern mass transit is actually like, ie. what we, as Americans, for the most part do not actually have, can be forgiven as a basis for your negative attitude.

      Modern mass transit offers multiple advantages over our current Hobsian all-against-all free for all of individually driven cars, given your ignorance, let me list some:

      1) modern mass transit has amazing air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter, I have never sweated or froze in modern mass transit. You don't have to sit in place warm up your transit for 10 minutes prior to departure in the morning, you don't have to sweat and gasp for air while waiting for your transit to cool down from 120 degrees Fahrenheit, upon entering your transit after a long days work. It's virtually never too hot or too cold in modern mass transit.

      2) modern mass transit is clean, well maintained and quite pleasant, and you might just be sitting next to corporate executives and/or high ranked politicians, for in places with modern mass transit, even the well off prefer using mass transit. Only in *expletive* societies like the US is mass transit considered only good enough for the poorest of the poor.

      3) modern mass transit allows you to make great use of the 3-4 hours a day that countless Americans waste driving their cars. Modern mass transit has internet, electricity, tables to work on and places where 4-6 people can, if they so choose, sit together. You can text safely while riding in modern mass transit, whereas in a car you threaten the life of yourself and everyone around you. You can read, write reports, hell you can even code, surf the web, watch videos or listen to music. And god forbid if you are so inclined you can even *speak* to another also present human being.

      4) modern mass transit is amazingly quiet and smooth. In some cities the trams are so quiet that bicyclists wearing headphones cant even tell their coming, ie. that's how little vibration and noise they make nowadays. Rapid high speed trains, a critical part of modern mass transit, are so frigging smooth you can fill a glass of wine on your table and leave it untouched over a 500 miles trip at speeds in excess of 250 mph on average. We have nothing like this in America, so I forgive you for being ignorant.

      5) modern mass transit systems consist of multiple separate yet inter-linked systems. Your experience as a passenger is as if there is a single moving sidewalk, because you can effortlessly and quickly switch from one to the next to the next of these separate inter-linked systems. Modern mass tranist systems usually consist of inter-linked high speed trains, subways, trams and bus systems. These inter-linked system connect cities and towns over larger geographic areas, metropolitan areas can extend hundreds of miles in all directions, meaning you can easily work or study hundred+ miles from where you live, and still spend less time in-transit than you currently do with your car.

      6) modern mass transit systems are incredibly reliable in terms of timing, if for no other reason than that are entirely isolated from automobile traffic and do not compete with cars. Modern mass transit systems run almost 24 hours offering service from whee early in the morning (5:00AM), until quite late at night(12:00 - 2:00 AM), and they operate on the weekends. If you want to be guaranteed to be on time to work or classes, use modern mass transit.

      7) modern mass transit systems ensure that where you want and need to shop is almost always within some smallish number of yards from mass transit stops. This means far less walking than what is entailed when shopping in places surrounded by epically large parking places. It also means you can easily do a little bit of shopping on your way back home from work or school 2-3 times a week rather than trying to buy everything needed for half a month and being exhausted from carrying 100 plus bags of goods for your family every time

    101. Re:It's simple.. by JillElf · · Score: 1

      Roads,bah. Real Americans don't drive on the roads...

    102. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, you were just saying how you lane split and slip around cars and manouvre in ways to sneak around said cars.

    103. Re:It's simple.. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Until a tire pops... Half the recommended distance between vehicles is simply for distance to stop, not reaction time.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    104. Re: It's simple.. by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      Don't know where you live by my commuter rail is $7.50 EACH WAY. Monthly passes are $300-400.

    105. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second 'allegations' part of your paragraph is tacked on and has nothing to do with the convictions part of the paragraph. GM was convicted of monopoly actions regarding the supplying bus lines. The other half is unsubtantiated puffery. Streetcars went away because they became obsolete.

    106. Re: It's simple.. by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Do you ride public transit? If so where do you live? I live in vegas. Fuck that noise, Its hot as hell most days.

    107. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys need to get a room.

    108. Re:It's simple.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      the same hackneyed notion which has never been proven to be feasible.

      Car platoons were tested in traffic on I-95 in Southern California in the 1990s. They work fine. They don't even require self-driving, just sensors and intelligent braking.

    109. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agribusiness subsidies keep the price of the food trucked into your city stable and affordable. People in the country could easily start subsiatence farming and cease shipping food to the helpless people in the city.

    110. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is an urban myth that the auto industry 'shut down' mass transit. One of the 'big lies' that has been debunked.

    111. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all you've ever known is crappy public transport, you're not really in a position to criticise public transport per se. I've lived and worked in a few European countries and visited more. My experiences have been much more pleasant than most people's comments here seem to indicate. Personally, I prefer the public transport I've been on to driving a car any day. Driving's stressful and tiring.

    112. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say ultra-liberal like it's a good thing. The proper term is ultra-corrupt. Pay them enough money and you can get things done. But you will have to keep paying. Forever.

    113. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This argument never makes sense.

      Sure it does: density is necessary [1] but not sufficient.

      [1] To make it economically viable.

    114. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      45 minutes walking is a lot less than 300 calories

    115. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an important lawsuit in the 50's that found GM, Firestone and Standard Oil of CA, where they lost and were fined $1.00.
      The worse public transit works the better cars and gasoline is selling.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

    116. Re: It's simple.. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If you have a decent walking pace, 45 minutes is 3 miles which is 300 calories.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    117. Re: It's simple.. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Your lack of experience of what modern mass transit is actually like, ie. what we, as Americans, for the most part do not actually have, can be forgiven as a basis for your negative attitude.

      A bus in America is no worse than a bus in Europe.

      A train in America is no worse than a train in Europe.

      Both of those have cost, convenience and efficiency problems.

      You can have the most ideal bus setup possible regardless of how much you want to hate on America and it will still be 3 times slower.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    118. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      [...] I agree that walking in 95F/98% is unpleasant, [...]

      I think you mean life-threatening.

    119. Re:It's simple.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Informative

      Self-driving cars can drive in tight "platoons" that greatly increase the carrying capacity of roads.

      Sort of like those tight collections of cars known as "trains"?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    120. Re: It's simple.. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1, Informative

      Done
      It's called Anthropogenic Global Warming and is backed by 99.7% of all peer reviewed formal journal published articles on Climatology over the last 50 years.

    121. Re:It's simple.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      eh not really. you can see celebs and power players on the subway all the time/

      Dunno about the subway, but I got to sit next to Robyn on a city bus here in Stockholm about 6 months ago. Wouldn't have known who it was if she hadn't been fiddling with something in her handbag and given me a glimpse of her ID card.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    122. Re:It's simple.. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      If even 20% of the private vehicles on the roads were replaced by buses or rail, THAT would be a HUGE WIN FOR EVERYBODY.

      Powerful people want a society enslaved and subservient to them (the Democrats don't even hide this agenda). A good mass transit system that would make people dependent on it to get around would further that goal.

      And you are a NUTJOB.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    123. Re: It's simple.. by iwbcman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Trains in America are not even the in the same league as trains in Europe. If you have never been on one you simply don't know the difference. European, and Japanese, and even Chinese trains travel at much higher speeds than anything in the US. The higher speed is accompanied with a totally different riding experience: much less noise, vibration and being tossed around.

      You are correct in comparing buses. But you are missing the point of my previous post. Buses are fine when used in conjunction with other mass transit systems(subway, trams, light rail, hihgh speed trains), but buses do not cause the synergistic effects that permanent mass transit connections do, thus they have negligible effects on property value and utility, partly due to the fact that bus stops are moved around frequently and they don't generate the amount of foot traffic, except where bus hubs connect with other mass transit systems. When you couple this with the American system of having separate bus systems for children of school age, which have zero connection with other bus systems or other mass transit connections, because they are 100% decoupled, you end up with public bus systems that remain under utilized and inefficient.

      Additionally you have a different social environment on public transit when each adult on the bus is responsible for safeguarding the well being of young children. In Europe 6-7 years hop on the trams by themselves to go to school, frequently in the company of other school-aged children, they are not accompanied by adults, but each adult on the tram understands their responsibility towards safeguarding the children. Let's put it this way, it's just really different than what we experience here in the US.

      There are important exceptions, alternate implementations of bus systems that actually do have the kind of synergistic effects. One city in China, whose name I forget, actually has a setup with a major artery traversing the city alone one axis have something like 12 lanes, with the interior 4 lanes physically isolated from the surrounding 8 lanes, where there are bus stop every 100 meters and the buses run continuous loops up and down this artery, the buses hit each bus stop with something like 30 seconds between buses, creating a hyper efficient form of mass transit which actually surpasses subways in terms of utility and mobility.

      But again most cities in America *only* have bus systems and they do not connect with any other forms of mass transit. Which means that bus systems utterly fail, on their own, to create the synergistic economies which are to be found everywhere where buses compliment actual mass transit systems.

      I lived in a city named Marburg in Germany from 1994 till 1998, part of the 190 Deutsch Mark(60 dollar) tuition fee for University studies included free use of all public transit within 100km of the city. I had an opportunity to study Latin in Frankfurt which was roughly 90km distance from Marburg. Marburg has approximately 60,000 inhabitants, Frankfurt some around 1.5 million inhabitants. 5 days a week I would leave my apart, walk 100 yards to the bus stop, caught the bus to the central train station, caught a train to Frankfurt, went to the subway station beneath the Frankfurt central train station, rode the subway for 3 1/2 mites, exited the subway climbed up the stairs to the street, hopped on a tram for the remaining two miles, and then walked 100 yards to the Latin class, where I studied for 4 hours and then did the exact same trip in reverse.

      The total trip time from my apartment to the Latin class was about 75 minutes, the same in reverse, and in 4 months I never ran into a delay, and I probably only had to walked about 250 yards total each way. And this was included in the cost of the University Tuition.

      There is nothing like this in the United States, there are only a handful of American cities that have rudimentary mass transit systems, nothing approaching what roughly 300 million people take for granted across most of Europe.

    124. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I-95? In California? I thought I-95 was on the *east* coast.

    125. Re: It's simple.. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Get rid of these people? What the hell, Adolf? How did this get up to +5?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    126. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many US cities in the early 20th century, car and tire companies got their shills elected to local transportation boards and thereby removed trolley cars and other public transport, to encourage people to buy cars.

      BTW a good book on the history and implications of so many US cities being designed for cars instead of for people is "Suburban Nation".

    127. Re: It's simple.. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      If everyone used their car/self driving cars/taxis then there would be gridlock. You need transportation that can carry a lot of people in one go. The mass transportation just needs to be made better, cleaner etc.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    128. Re:It's simple.. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Fleets of on-demand, self-driving electric cars are the future.

      Uh-huh. Companies have been saying that since the 1980's, all of the automakers tried self-driving lift trucks and driverless shunts over the last 30 years. Drive by wire, drive by wire+IR/visual identifiers, and so on. It's still another 20+ years off if not more at this point, they can't stop the shunts from driving into each other in a parking lot the size of a walmart supercenter. Don't get me started on their inability to back into a dock and take out other trailers that are stationary because the computer freaks the fuck out. Can't stop the lift trucks from driving off the wires and sometimes keep going until they smash into A-frames.

      For "fleet on demand" to be a thing, you need to solve the current problem of there being "not enough trucks available for existing stock." You might not know, but JIT is the standard which means those fleets of trucks are considered rolling warehouses, in turn they always have to be on the road.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    129. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you an idiot with reading comprehension problem? Read the news. And stop inhaling traffic exhaust, it makes you dumb as fuck (1st article by googling traffic exhaust).

    130. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the person you're replying to, but I live in New York. The stations are hot as hell but the subway trains have air conditioning. In any case, at least I'm not being selfish and destroying the planet. Although I'm also the type of person that stands so other people can sit down.

    131. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Global warming doesnâ(TM)t mean cars are at fault.

      https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping-carbon-pollution/amp/

    132. Re: It's simple.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      It's because the one car one person model is destroying the planet, and until we get rid of selfish people who think otherwise, we are in trouble

      From what I've read, it seems that cow farts (food animal emissions) do more damage to the atmosphere than cars do....

      And really, I don't see the current ICE cars blowing up the earth before I'm done with it and dead and gone, so what do I care?

      I'm guessing not long after I'm gone, you'll have electric vehicles....and again, why not have one per person?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    133. Re: It's simple.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So you can play on your phone instead of constantly making sure you're staying alive.

      Not sure why I'd have my head stuck in a phone for that long....?

      Btu anyway, I like driving, I buy fun sports cars, and every time I turn the ignition, it is a small adventure to me, and I crank on the tunes, and jam out while driving.....I get to observer the outside world a bit and enjoy the scenery.

      I'm also not having to deal with whatever PITA behavior a total stranger is exhibiting right next to me.....inside my car is my own space. I can also carry my CCW with me in MY car to my destination, I hear you cannot do that on some forms of public transport in some states.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    134. Re: It's simple.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      1) modern mass transit has amazing air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter, I have never sweated or froze in modern mass transit. You don't have to sit in place warm up your transit for 10 minutes prior to departure in the morning, you don't have to sweat and gasp for air while waiting for your transit to cool down from 120 degrees Fahrenheit, upon entering your transit after a long days work. It's virtually never too hot or too cold in modern mass transit.

      I was talking more about what you have to deal with while waiting for the mass transit...out in the elements. And having to deal with the elements walking to/from the access point to your destination which is often quite a distance, since you can't do door-to-door with public transport.

      Also, how do you grocery stop for the weekend with this? I mean, I don't want to try schlepping a 14b brisket, wood and charcoal if I'm gonna fire up the smoker, not to mention all the other groceries I'd be buying for the week...that just doesn't work on a bus.

      2) modern mass transit is clean, well maintained and quite pleasant, and you might just be sitting next to corporate executives and/or high ranked politicians, for in places with modern mass transit, even the well off prefer using mass transit. Only in *expletive* societies like the US is mass transit considered only good enough for the poorest of the poor.

      Well, it must be different where you live, the times I've ridden on pubic transport, I did not observer any upper level executive types like you describe, almost exclusively poor and bums, aside from a few tourists.

      3) modern mass transit allows you to make great use of the 3-4 hours a day that countless Americans waste driving their cars. Modern mass transit has internet, electricity, tables to work on and places where 4-6 people can, if they so choose, sit together. You can text safely while riding in modern mass transit, whereas in a car you threaten the life of yourself and everyone around you. You can read, write reports, hell you can even code, surf the web, watch videos or listen to music. And god forbid if you are so inclined you can even *speak* to another also present human being.

      What 3-4 hours a day are you talking about? I mean unless you live out in LA, CA or NYC or Chicago or the like....you don't spend hours on the road. At most I've only driven 30 minutes each way for work, and that was due to doing a job in the town over from my home for awhile, usually I have never had more than 15-20 min drive each way for work, no matter which state I lived in. Hours of commute are NOT common in most places in the US. A car is exponentially faster than public transport.

      6) modern mass transit systems are incredibly reliable in terms of timing, if for no other reason than that are entirely isolated from automobile traffic and do not compete with cars. Modern mass transit systems run almost 24 hours offering service from whee early in the morning (5:00AM), until quite late at night(12:00 - 2:00 AM), and they operate on the weekends. If you want to be guaranteed to be on time to work or classes, use modern mass transit.

      please tell me all the magical places that have mass transit that is on time and regular, with little wait times?

      7) modern mass transit systems ensure that where you want and need to shop is almost always within some smallish number of yards from mass transit stops. This means far less walking than what is entailed when shopping in places surrounded by epically large parking places. It also means you can easily do a little bit of shopping on your way back home from work or school 2-3 times a week rather than trying to buy everything needed for half a month and being exhausted from carrying 100 plus bags of goods for your family every time you go shopping

      I have better things to do with my li

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    135. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have traveled extensively around European cities on public transportation. It gets you where you want to go, but you are very tired at the end of the day.

    136. Re:It's simple.. by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      In other words, we had "good" public transportation when people had no other good options.

    137. Re:It's simple.. by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      If even 20% of the private vehicles on the roads were replaced by buses or rail, THAT would be a HUGE WIN FOR EVERYBODY.

      No it wouldn't. The consequences of having that would be devastating for many.

    138. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you propose we get that money from?

      The savings from not wasting our lives, money, and time, trying to keep up a failing system of personal vehicles in a costly, inefficient, and dangerous manner.

      We'll actually make trillions.

    139. Re:It's simple.. by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      Yeah...they can move 75mph until they get to the portion of the road that can't handle that. Then they slow down. And stop. And everything behinds them has to as well. That line of stopped traffic builds up and extends into the portion of the network where 75mph is theoretically possible. Then your fancy self-driving cars are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic just like everyone else.

    140. Re:It's simple.. by volmtech · · Score: 1

      So everyone decides to emulate you. They move close to where they work, what is that going to do to rents and home prices? They all jam themselves into public transportation, you get to make thousands of new friends.

    141. Re: It's simple.. by JakeBurn · · Score: 1

      Strange that whenever I hear that term and "consensus" it always refers to coal fired powerplants and only to automobiles when used by some moron talking about mass transit.
      If you removed every single auto from the planet it would only account for 25-28% of carbon emissions world wide. Calling this an issue in the US when our emission standards are the strictest on the planet is just petty politicking. Asian nations that don't have these standards have just as many vehicles as the US and removing every single vehicle from our nation would result in about 1.8% reduction in the world's total emissions. And that's in the nation with highest total number of vehicles and the third highest per capita usage of vehicles. The expense of creating a mass transit system that could service the entire nation would eclipse any rational reason for doing so. And all of that isn't even considering the personal impact, (in time wasted), for a nation where just as many people live more than 10 miles from urban centers than live inside them. We're far too spread out and far too independent minded of a people to allow such waste of our daily lives in exchange for such an imperceptible benefit.

    142. Re:It's simple.. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Suburbia is quite compatible with public transportation. Population can be quite diffuse, geographically, and have great interurban, intercity, interstate, and hub/spoke mass transportation.

      The real problems are acquisition, capex, opex, but also: convenience and social attitudes about mass transportation. Once there are electric "jets" and cruiselines, I'll be a lot happier, too.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    143. Re: It's simple.. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Even if it was clean, on time and lacked smelly bums.....why would I choose public transportation when I can more easily and directly have door-to-door services with my own car?

      I think you forgot the bit about spending 10 minutes at each end of the journey to find a parking space for your car - then having to leave the workplace every hour or two to move the car to a new location, because the parking places come with time limits and fines.

      It is, after all, far cheaper than demolishing the centres of cities and re-building them around the car, which is only going to be a transitory thing for a century and a half, if that when buildings are for millennia or longer.

      I'm assuming that a quarter to a third of your housing costs are devoted to off-road parking for your car, probably in a garage. More, if you live on a level above ground floor.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    144. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every consider that the modern person just doesn't want to ride mass transit for their daily lives?

      Yes, we know that people don't want to think about things, but just glide by on cruise control.

      So what?

      The fact is, people hate and despise driving, and all the drawbacks it has. Potholes, congestion, wrecks, gas stations, mechanics, car salesmen, pollution and more.

      The vast majority of people would praise whoever spared them from their daily commute.

      That's why you could literally replace society with a carless one and be elected Supreme Ruler of the Planet. They would love you for it.

    145. Re: It's simple.. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      Our CO2 emissions standards? We don't have any thanks to Republican'ts lawsuits.

    146. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Bohn? And what exactly do you mean with "But just within CA, the areas of SF and LA alone have the population density equal to that of Germany (between Munich and Berlin or Bohn, for example"?

      Germany has 83 million residents, California as a whole 39.5 million. Germany has an area of 357,400km2, California 424,000km2, the USA as a whole has 325 million residents on 9,833,500km2. So Germany has 2x the population on 85% of the total area (and 1/4 the population on
      less than 4% of the area).

      The main reason why mass transit is so bad in the USA because most people here are just to lazy, like to take the car everywhere, drive-thru this, drive-in that.
      Railways helped to build this country but it is even barely used for freight transport anymore, even far less for any people traveling. But then they try to build a high-speed rail, for which they don't even have remotely realistic ridership numbers. It's not a problem of one political party vs. another, it's the collective stupidity of this residents here. Far too few who don't fall for all of this and see things more realistic...

    147. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lived in a country with "modern mass transit" for 25 years of my life. Didn't even have a car except for the last two years, and didn't use it much anyway.

      Then I moved to US.

      And you know what? Fuck your modern mass transit. Everything you wrote is bullshit. It's literally the other way around - most people extolling its virtues are not the ones who are forced to use it year after year. I'll keep my car and the freedom and convenience that comes with that.

    148. Re:It's simple.. by ananamouse · · Score: 1

      It is simple really, read the book "Total Atomic Defense." You can Google around and find a PDF of it but I prefer the origonal red cover hardback. Since those Ruskys got the bomb and started producing MIRVs the policy of our government is "NEVER ANOTHER MANHATTAN." The United States cival defece stratagy is spread everything out so it is harder to hit and link everything by concrete. Being a governmnet plan you can see how it worked out......

    149. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, the entitled class who subsist off the backs of the working class, are not required to schlep it in to work, so why would they waste money on mass transit when they arenâ(TM)t required to go anywhere? This is a major factor that the author of this post is failing to mention, much less recognize. No wonder.

    150. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is simple. You are a dumb mother fucker. It has nothing to do with race/class and everything to do with sanity/sanitation. Why do I want to ride on mass transit with my nose tucked into someone elseâ(TM)s unwashed underarm when I can ride in my own private vehicle with that new car smell? Have a walk down the streets of San Francisco and try to avoid stepping into human excrement and then get back to me.

    151. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk out their ass and/or FART, whatâ(TM)s the difference?

    152. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes me zero time to find a parking spot at work because there’s is a shit ton of empty spaces. And I park there all day without needing to move my car. Plus I could leave it there for years and it won’t get towed or ticketed.

      By contrast, if I take the bus my commute time jumps from a fifteen minute drive, to a hour long commute. Plus, there bus only runs once in the morning and once at night. So my entire work schedule has to revolve around that buses schedule.

    153. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes a safety margin for irrational human drivers doing unpredictable things. Networked selfdriving cars won't have to worry about that.

    154. Re: It's simple.. by ananamouse · · Score: 1

      >not lose my job while I gathered money to fix the car.
      My solution is to have a spare car. Wife and I both work. We have three cars. They are not pretty but they are paid for and rated dependable by Consumer Reports.

    155. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10) You can drink without worrying about driving under the influence. No designated driver needed.

    156. Re:It's simple.. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Because networked, self-driving cars don't have to abide by the laws of physics and things like friction, right?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    157. Re: It's simple.. by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Every consider that the modern person just doesn't want to ride mass transit for their daily lives?

      It has absolutely nothing to do with being a "modern person". I am a "modern person" and I prefer using public transit to driving. It has to do with two things:

      1) What you're used to, and what your experience of driving vs. public transit is.

      2) How the place you live in is configured, i.e. is it transit-oriented or car-oriented.

      Even if it was clean, on time and lacked smelly bums.....why would I choose public transportation when I can more easily and directly have door-to-door services with my own car?

      "Door to door" only works when you have a parking spot in front of both doors, i.e. one in front of your home, and one in front of your destination. While I know most of North America is configured this way, a lot of places in this world (including a fair bit in North America) are not. I challenge you to drive "door-to-door" in Manhattan, for instance. If you have to park a long way away from either, or both doors, than transit becomes more convenient: actually much closer to "door-to-door" then driving.

      Unless you are down and out with regards to money, why would anyone choose it?

      Because it's more convenient, and faster? This gets us back to point 2) above. How does the city you live in look like? Of course, I'm not saying it makes sense to take public transit in every place. Some places, it just sucks, for various reasons - but do not make the mistake of generalizing. Whether public transit makes sense or not is a consequence of very deliberate decisions by city planners. Whether the service sucks or not is a consequence of very deliberate decisions by city officials. There is almost nothing "natural" about the state of public transit in a given place (I say almost, because in some places geography forces cities to be high density, for example). The "free market" also has very little to do with it as well.

      The times I come close to wanting to go somewhere and not drive or park....I uber. Again, it is door-to-door.

      You're right, Uber is door-to-door, but most people's budgets cannot handle Ubering 2-4 times per day. That's why I laugh when people say that services like Uber will replace public transit...unless Uber will drive me 10-15 miles for $2, or let me have unlimited drives in a city wherever I want, whenever I want for $50-100 a month, then, well, no, it ain't replacing any serious public transit systems in any way.

      This is especially important when there is inclement weather, or when, like here, it is fscking 95F out with 98% humidity. If you're dressed at all to look nice for work, etc, you don't wanna be sweating your ass off by the time you get to work.

      Buses and trains can have air-conditioning. It's a thing. Lot's of people in suits in NYC or Toronto or wherever take the subway and buses to work, when it's 95F and 98% humidity. I won't even get into the wider issue there, which is that people who live in places where it's 95F and 98% humidity set the thermostat in their offices to 65F and crank up the AC so people can be comfortable sitting at their desks in suits. This is a waste of resources on an epic scale, for no valid reason whatsoever.

    158. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a time traveller from 2024? Seattle's light rail is very far from complete and carries only a modest number of riders.

    159. Re: It's simple.. by hazardPPP · · Score: 2

      For mass transit to work and be as convenient you need 24h busses every 15-30m during the day and hourly at night with stops about every 0.5-1 km.

      I can tell you're American, you folks think a bus or train every 15 minutes is "frequent service". LOL. No, you would need a sub-10 min. frequency during peak periods, and for certains modes of transportation (like buses), you would need a stop even less than every 500 m (for subways, sub-500 m doesn't make sense, both due to acceleration/deccelaration of large trains, plus the cost of stations, which cost more than the tunnels typically). You don't really need 24h service (although it's nice to have) 5 AM - midnight/1 AM service is just fine in most places.

      This works if the government (aka taxes) pays for it but is also a massive waste of fuel and taxpayers money as near empty busses drive around. You need at least 15% capacity on EVERY bus to make it compete with cars AND to pay for a driver.

      You can't evaluate public transit just by looking at its running costs and fare revenue. Public transit has numerous other positives coming through various knock-on effects, and there are many studies which quantify this and put a $ figure on it. Subsidized public transit can be and often is a net positive.

      I used mass transit for commute in Europe, it's great but then you also see the waste when you see the 10am train transporting 5 passengers and 5 crew.

      Once you have the train, and the tracks, and the crew (paid to do an 8 hr shift in any case), the incremental cost of running an extra train is quite low. Systems are typically dimensioned for peak periods, so the cost of running the service in off-peak is basically negligible. You must also realize that that "empty" train at 10 AM is actually driving ridership at other, "fuller" periods. People are more likely to buy a transit pass or consider using it at all if they know it runs pretty much all the time, instead of just when the trains would be full. I'll be more likely to take the train to work if I know I can also use my monthly pass to take an empty train at 10 AM to the park or wherever when I'm off work. Or that I will be able to take an empty train back home at 11 PM if I stay late at work or decide to do something after work close to my office in the evening or...and so forth. Would you be more likely to buy a car if someone told you a) you can drive it whenever you want, wherever you want or b) you can only drive it to work in the morning, and back home in the afternoon?

    160. Re: It's simple.. by hazardPPP · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And I didn't even mention the stupid rules they have: - I'm not allowed to eat or drink anything; - I can't have pepperspray on me; - Not that I have one, but even if I had a firearm and CCW permit I would not be allowed to carry it;

      San Jose's public transportation sounds pretty poorly managed from your description, so it's no wonder people prefer to drive. However, if you feel the need to carry peppespray or firearms on you on your way to work, or wherever, I'd say San Jose has bigger problems than its light rail system.

      Also, you complain here about not being able to eat anything on the train, while later in your post you complain about odours on the train. I'm sure you realize that, if everyone could eat on the train, the odours would be that much more unpleasant? The sweat and garlic... Finally, I hope you don't eat while driving, since that's a bit of a safety hazard.

    161. Re: It's simple.. by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Btu anyway, I like driving, I buy fun sports cars, and every time I turn the ignition, it is a small adventure to me, and I crank on the tunes, and jam out while driving.....I get to observer the outside world a bit and enjoy the scenery.

      Well, not everywhere is the same. A sports car is not fun when you're stuck bumper to bumper on the freeway. The scenery is not enjoyable when it consists of 10 lanes of barely moving traffic. Where you are, or where you drive, it may be great, sure, but it's not a general rule. In large cities, it's definitely not the most common case.

      I can also carry my CCW with me in MY car to my destination, I hear you cannot do that on some forms of public transport in some states.

      Yeah...so you folks in America definitely got bigger problems than the cars vs. transit debate. You do realize that what you just wrote would sound, like, insane in any other developed Western country? You don't want to take the bus 'cause you can't carry your concealed firearm with you...well, good. I wouldn't want a wacko with a gun next to me on the bus either. When I'm in the US again next month, I'll be sure to check the local transit authority's rules on that, and avoid using them if they let people with hidden guns on. I wouldn't feel safe in a bus or train where random passengers might be armed.

    162. Re: It's simple.. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Every consider that the modern person just doesn't want to ride mass transit for their daily lives?

      You missed one word:

      Every consider that the modern US person just doesn't want to ride mass transit for their daily lives?

      For some reason it seems to work really well in Europe, and (I assume) other countries like Canadia and Australalalasia, just not the US.

    163. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powerful people want the roads for themselves. Take mayor DeBlasio... He has his SUV caravan take him to his Brooklyn gym every day and wanus us to take the train. Qhen challenged he says its irrelevant. Power corrupts...

    164. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First honest argument FOR private transit. Who wants to lug around their stuff on mass transit. When it can stay in the car.

    165. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it wrong bumper to bumper is stop and go. SDC. theoretically can drive at constant speed and flow smoothly. BUT... politicians will be able to make you go slower so they can go faster and how long before you're paing extra to be in the "fast lane" 'cause they'll figure a new way to suck money out of your wallet.

    166. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I lived in Boston and took the "T" back and forth to work at the MIT campus, not only did I get to use that time to read massive numbers of articles and books, I also always arrived unburdened by stress over a congested commute. Add to that fact that it kept us from needed a second car and it saved oodles of money too.
      Even here in Cleveland I insisted on buying a house near the "rapid" (bit of a misnomer) so I could commute to downtown that way.

      I am sure there are many, many more like me who ditch the damn car commute in a heart beat if only they could.

      Waiting to be joined by the rest of humanity once gas hits $10/gallon....

    167. Re: It's simple.. by Contract+Gypsy · · Score: 0

      It's because the one car one person model is destroying the planet, and until we get rid of selfish people who think otherwise, we are in trouble

      Okay, here are the results of your protection of the earth. 1: The big three die again. 2: Coal fired plants and nat gas will still be used to charge e-cars. Electricity costs go through the roof. zillions of jobs are lost in the automotive sector. I'm not a planet hater by any means, but government has a track record of screwing up anything they touch. Just wait for German style Socialism... must shut down nuke plants! Crap, we didn't realize we would run low on power, so lets buy coal generated electricity from another country! Well it sounded good at first, then nobody gave a crap. Don't forget to add in the govt. inspecting your house and finding that the roof insulation doesn't meet current code. As a homeowner you have to spend 50K Euro to replace your roof. And then of course the same inspectors realize there are too many cracks in the street in front of you house, that'll be another 30K Euro. In other words, you are in a hole with the first breath you take.

      --
      Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
    168. Re: It's simple.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      A sports car is not fun when you're stuck bumper to bumper on the freeway. The scenery is not enjoyable when it consists of 10 lanes of barely moving traffic. Where you are, or where you drive, it may be great, sure, but it's not a general rule. In large cities, it's definitely not the most common case.

      What you describe is pretty much ONLY in a few very large cities in the US, like NYC, Chicago, LA....etc.

      That is certainly NOT the norm for the rest of the US.

      You do realize that what you just wrote would sound, like, insane in any other developed Western country? You don't want to take the bus 'cause you can't carry your concealed firearm with you...well, good. I wouldn't want a wacko with a gun next to me on the bus either. When I'm in the US again next month, I'll be sure to check the local transit authority's rules on that, and avoid using them if they let people with hidden guns on. I wouldn't feel safe in a bus or train where random passengers might be armed.

      Well, you shouldn't be worried about any citizen that has taken the time and effort and mandatory training to carry a concealed firearm, they're not folks you would need to be afraid of....you should be afraid of the criminals, like gang members that are quite often illegally armed.

      It might be that a legal licensed citizen could be there to stop and protect you from one of the criminals I just described.

      I consider carrying a pistol on the same level as carrying a pocket knife....a tool for the day.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    169. Re:It's simple.. by bjb · · Score: 1
      To pull two comments together, when Bloomberg was first mayor of NYC he was known to ride the subway at times. I don't know why though I can speculate two things:
      1. Nobody is anybody in NYC; famous people can be just like everyone else as long as they avoid the tourist hotspots (e.g. Times Square).
      2. During rush hours, the subway tends to be the fastest means of getting around town.
      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    170. Re: It's simple.. by rhyous · · Score: 1

      I can tell you are European. You think that transit succes in one of your Countries (which is is the size of one or two of our 50 states) is awesome. But if you look at 30+ nations in Europe, you are just as bad when lumped together as the US is when lumped together.

      Transit in New York is quite good, despite the article's mentioning that its use isn't at its peak. Transit in the highly populated areas of the US is comparable to transit in Europe.

      http://www.mylifeelsewhere.com...
      http://www.mylifeelsewhere.com...
      http://www.mylifeelsewhere.com...

      Also, you have no idea what it is like to live in the Western United States, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Dakotas, Arizon, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas (which by itself is larger in land than any Western European country) etc...? All of these states are as big as your single counties. In these states, large areas of land are populated by people who live a mile or more between every house. Do you have any towns where there are only 2,000 people living in the town, yet the town looks like a far bigger town, almost a city, because there are 30,000 people who live in the surrounding thirty mile radius, highly spread out? Or if you have a couple of these towns, are the norm, not the exception?

      I hear the same uneducated garbage about the british mailing system. You can send a letter anywhere in England and it will be there by the next morning. Why can't the US mailing system be just as good. Well, it is in highly populated areas the size of England, but we are about 50 times the size of England.

    171. Re: It's simple.. by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      What you describe is pretty much ONLY in a few very large cities in the US, like NYC, Chicago, LA....etc.

      Well, traffic seems pretty bad in a mid-size city like Portland, OR, too (where there is decent transit, walkable neighbourhoods, and lots of people bike). The cities you list have atrocious traffic.

      you should be afraid of the criminals, like gang members that are quite often illegally armed.

      Yeah, as I said, you've got bigger problems than the state of transit...

      It might be that a legal licensed citizen could be there to stop and protect you from one of the criminals I just described.

      More likely he'd get me killed, because pulling his gun would probably cause the criminal to start shooting...

      I consider carrying a pistol on the same level as carrying a pocket knife....a tool for the day.

      That's 'cause, you're like, crazy, man.

    172. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the last time you drove the I-5, did the freeway itself seem empty and desolate? Or packed bumper-to-bumper with cars and semis? Anyone who has driven the 5 through the central valley should have seen that there's a huge need for different types of transit between the LA area and SF/Sacramento.

    173. Re: It's simple.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      That's 'cause, you're like, crazy, man.

      You keep using that terminology, but can you explain "why" you think someone that carries a gun is "crazy" or a nut?

      Do you think cops are nuts and crazy too because they carry guns?

      I'm just exercising my 2A rights in the US, and I have just as many rights as a cop...so, what's so unusual or "nutty" about doing so?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    174. Re: It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you don't eat while driving, since that's a bit of a safety hazard.

      This is America. If you can't steer with your knees while drinking a Double Gulp of Mountain Dew from your left hand, eating a triple bacon cheeseburger from your right hand, and propping up a tray of hot wings on your enormous pot belly, they strip you of your citizenship.

    175. Re:It's simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you forgot about the other half that goes with your first half...
      Even then you missed the point above with regards the speed of said vehicles, and the predictability of self driving cars.
      Come to think of it, you didn't seem to understand anything at all did you?

    176. Re: It's simple.. by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      I can tell you are European. You think that transit succes in one of your Countries (which is is the size of one or two of our 50 states) is awesome. But if you look at 30+ nations in Europe, you are just as bad when lumped together as the US is when lumped together.

      Europe has 50 sovereign nations, while the EU has 28 member states. So I wonder what you are lumping together...when people speak of the great or good state of public transit in Europe, they generally refer to Western Europe. A lot of countries in Europe are poor. I can guess public transit in Albania might be bad (though, not necessarily, as much poorer large Eastern European cities often have better public transit than comparable American cities).

      Transit in New York is quite good, despite the article's mentioning that its use isn't at its peak. Transit in the highly populated areas of the US is comparable to transit in Europe.

      Depends on your definition of "comparable". I've been to California. Would you call Los Angeles County a "highly populated place"? I would. How about the San Diego area? That too. Now, I would hardly call transit use there and in similarly populated areas in Western Europe "comparable". What about Dallas? Also highly populated. Not with comparable transit use...

      Also, you have no idea what it is like to live in the Western United States, Utah, Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Dakotas, Arizon, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas (which by itself is larger in land than any Western European country) etc...? All of these states are as big as your single counties. In these states, large areas of land are populated by people who live a mile or more between every house. Do you have any towns where there are only 2,000 people living in the town, yet the town looks like a far bigger town, almost a city, because there are 30,000 people who live in the surrounding thirty mile radius, highly spread out? Or if you have a couple of these towns, are the norm, not the exception?

      Actually I do, as I've been to some of those places. I also lived in Canada for 14+ years, which has similar issues with remoteness and spread-out towns. You are completely missing the point here. Nobody says there should be a bus every 5 minutes in a town of 20,000 people in the middle of the desert in Utah. I'm not saying there should be a streetcar connecting two 5000-person towns in the Texas backcountry.

      The problem is with how America has built its large cities. Like Dallas. Or LA. Or Detroit. The list goes on. Completely car-centric. Too spread-out. Designed around freeways, meant to be traversed almost exclusively by car. Even where transit might make sense, it's not run, or if it is run, it's not properly managed and funded. It's looked at as a service for poor people who cannot afford a car, so no wonder people complain that all the riders are hobos and whatever. You get what you make of it. Walking to places is also difficult, or just impossible/impractical. Forget efficient transportation and energy sustainability - this just makes for bad, boring, depressing cities. None of this was by accident. It was all intentional. Planners made it so. Read Jane Jacobs. She was American. She figured it out.

      I hear the same uneducated garbage about the british mailing system. You can send a letter anywhere in England and it will be there by the next morning. Why can't the US mailing system be just as good. Well, it is in highly populated areas the size of England, but we are about 50 times the size of England.

      Well, FedEx seems to do next-day delivery for most of the US, obviously it'll cost more than a stamp or two for the reasons you state. Wait, USPS offers overnight delivery (for more than a stamp of course) to most locations. Now, from what I've heard - from Americans - the problems with the USPS stem more from Congress mismanaging it (including people who want to "prove" a government-run postal service is bad by running it into the ground) then from the size of the country.

    177. Re: It's simple.. by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      You keep using that terminology, but can you explain "why" you think someone that carries a gun is "crazy" or a nut?

      Because I cannot see why anyone normal would want to carry, under normal circumstances, a concealed killing machine in their pocket. Why do YOU want to carry around, concealed, a device designed explicitly for killing people? "It's my right to do so" is not a sufficient answer. I'm not questioning your right to do so, but your rationale. How is a killing machine just a "tool for the day?" That makes no sense in the vast majority of normal circumstances. It makes sense if you're, say, a hitman. Or a cop.

      Someone carrying a concealed weapon (as it is concealed, you're not showing off you're armed to make a point or intimidate someone) is either A) living in a really unsafe area, and feels the need to be armed to protect themselves or B) has intentions of using it nefariously or C) is a bit wonkers: paranoia, gun fetish, or whatever, really, the list could go on for a bit. Note I'm not saying this applies to just owning a firearm. I'm saying it applies to people wanting to carry concealed firearms everywhere.

      Now, if you fall under case A), then I understand totally and really regret your situation. I have no understanding for cases B) and C).

      Do you think cops are nuts and crazy too because they carry guns?

      Scuba divers carry an oxygen tank on their backs and wear a mask and flippers. Totally reasonable outfit for scuba diving. On the other hand, someone decked out in full scuba diving gear just walking down the street, with no intention of getting wet - yeah, that's pretty crazy. Sorry, I had to counter your entirely ridiculous parallel with one of my own.

      Now, seriously, a lot of police officers that shouldn't be armed are. On top of that, cops in America are way to quick to draw their guns.

      I'm just exercising my 2A rights in the US, and I have just as many rights as a cop...so, what's so unusual or "nutty" about doing so?

      A guy going down the street yelling nonsense at every person he sees is just exercising his 1A rights, but that doesn't change the fact that he's crazy...

    178. Re: It's simple.. by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Only barely, and not on a 10-minute walk to the bus. Nor has 95F/98% ever actually happened in the US: seems the official record is a dew point of 88 F in 2011.

    179. Re: It's simple.. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      We've already failed. It is hopeless that mass transit can get fixed in less than 30 years, so self-driving cars is the solution.

      Every consider that the modern person just doesn't want to ride mass transit for their daily lives?

      Even if it was clean, on time and lacked smelly bums.....why would I choose public transportation when I can more easily and directly have door-to-door services with my own car?

      Not to mention, in my own car, I keep my own stuff it in and don't have to load/unload all the time, I have my radio programmed in, I keep some daily possessions in there, etc.

      Unless you are down and out with regards to money, why would anyone choose it?

      The times I come close to wanting to go somewhere and not drive or park....I uber. Again, it is door-to-door.

      This is especially important when there is inclement weather, or when, like here, it is fscking 95F out with 98% humidity. If you're dressed at all to look nice for work, etc, you don't wanna be sweating your ass off by the time you get to work.

      I love our mass transit system (Montreal). Subways run on time, fast, clean, noisefree, seats designed for people wearing winter coats. . Some newer trains include good quality wifi.
      If your mass transit (bus/subway) provided wifi, and punctuality, and the roads had special bus lanes, (as we do here), and it is affordable to use, then MT will win. Single rides are $3.25 (good for transfers too). Seniors, single rides $2.25.
      By 10 rides for a discount, buy a monthly pass for $100.00 (less for seniors and kids).
      Some of our buses and some subway cars accomodate wheelchairs

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    180. Re:It's simple.. by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      But individual transit essentially does the opposite of what mass transit it supposed to do. They increase pollution and increase traffic congestion.

      No, what transit is supposed to do is move people from place to place. And individual transit does that better.

  2. Answer: The Koch Brothers by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are behind it for decades.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...

    1. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by spudnic · · Score: 5, Informative

      We had a pretty forward looking transit plan up for a vote here in Nashville recently. It really was quite innovative and had good support.

      The Koch Brothers came in and spent millions on anti-transportation ads. They rallied the residents in lower income areas behind the idea that they were going to be stuck with old buses when the more affluent areas would get the new infrastructure.

      The proposal was voted down with more votes from those precincts casting ballots than for almost any other election.

      Sad.

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    2. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by spudnic · · Score: 2

      No. Not really. Other things she had started like the Major League Soccer team have gone through. If you look at the results it was obvious that if the "non-traditional" voters hadn't have shown up that it would have passed with no issue.

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    3. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      As are the unions. As is the management. Oh, and that recession too. And, the homeless. Oh, and cheap ride-share services that are more flexible.

      Bottom line is that there are a lot of pressures on public transit, and it isn't something most people want to use.

      I would say the real culprit though is poor urban/metropolitan planning. You just can't have an elevated light-rail train stop that has 100 parking spots and is walkable for ~300 people and expect it to have an economically viable ridership. Each stop you add slows the total line time and reduces viability.

    4. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The Koch Brothers are also never-Trumpers. They are pro-open borders as well. Witness this conversation between Vox and Bernie Sanders:

      Ezra Klein
      You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing ...

      Bernie Sanders
      Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.

      Ezra Klein
      Really?

      Bernie Sanders
      Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...

      Ezra Klein
      But it would make ...

      Bernie Sanders
      Excuse me ...

      Ezra Klein
      It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?

      Bernie Sanders
      It would make everybody in America poorer - you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

      You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

      I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.

      Ezra Klein
      Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by, say, Malaysian standards, so if the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility?

      We have a nation-state structure. I agree on that. But philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?

      Bernie Sanders
      I do weigh it. As a United States senator in Vermont, my first obligation is to make certain kids in my state and kids all over this country have the ability to go to college, which is why I am supporting tuition-free public colleges and universities.

      https://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Why would that matter? What does mass transit for the people have to do with fucking an intern or whomever?

    6. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by slack_justyb · · Score: 1

      Other things she had started like the Major League Soccer team have gone through

      Well I think the reason that stuck was because Jon Ingram had pored a lot into that. Pretty much if Frist, Ingram, or Smith (that's HCA, Ingram, and FedEx) say they want something, well they get it.

    7. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is what sometimes happens though. Transit gets built around higher income areas while leaving everyone else out. Light Rail for example.

      The article is bs anyway since they completely negelct to even mention population density. I'm sooo very, very tired of hearing "look how Japan does it", or India or or... Those places don't have a fraction of the land in NA, and certinaly are NOT models to follow. They do the same thing with Internet speeds.

      Down vote away.. The real reason infrastrucuture is crumbling and not scaling is Immigration, by the millions. The longterm costs of which are rarely included in rehtoric spouted by the left or msm.

    8. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Because voters don't vote with their brains but with their emotions.

    9. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Because voters don't vote with their brains but with their emotions.

      That would explain the whole "abolish ICE" bit.

    10. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by ooloorie · · Score: 0

      They rallied the residents in lower income areas behind the idea that they were going to be stuck with old buses when the more affluent areas would get the new infrastructure.

      So they were telling them the truth then, while politicians were lying to them. Your problem with this is... what?

    11. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The con who was pushing a tax increase without actually giving mass transit was exposed as a slimy shitball.

    12. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Voters realize that a person corrupt in one area of life is more likely to be corrupt in other areas of life. Corrupt politicians hurt most people.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    13. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comrade, our central planning skills are just not up to the job. We need to starve more of the proletariat so they are more compliant.

    14. Re:Answer: The Koch Brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be precise, it was the city police chief.

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. There is also the issue of urban planning by filesiteguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    I live outside of Los Angeles. In my case, there's a rail station about five miles from my house. There is also a train station a block from my office. I *could* ride a bike there and then take a train. I honestly would like to. However, the total commute by car is about 40 minutes (17 miles) door-to-door. The MINIMUM commute by rail would be three hours door to door.

    Thanks, I'll take my car.

    1. Re: There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Smart car fits into a (to be newly designed) wagon sideways. Thus, owners of such small cars could simply drive onto a train, ride the train to another station, then drive off the train and to their destination.

      Obviously, this requires ramps at the stations and a wagons which accommodate cars in a perpendicular (not front to back, serial loading and unloading) arrangement.

    2. Re: There is also the issue of urban planning by filesiteguy · · Score: 2

      I've tried to squeeze my 6'4" (191cm) frame into a Smart Car. It wasn't fun.

    3. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by ausekilis · · Score: 3, Informative

      My nearest bus stop is 7 miles away, nearest train stop is 3 miles from work (~12 miles for me). My options are ~35 min of drive time, an hour and a half of biking, an hour for car + train, or near two hours for some combination with a bus. As mentioned in one of my previous comments, even dedicated bike lanes are in short supply and I'd be taking my life in my own hands with 3000lb wrecking balls flying 3 feet next to me at 50mph.

      My city doesn't even have buses, I'd be going to an adjacent city to get to work. How's that for fun?

    4. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      Ouch! See, the issue is how the developers organically designed cities. Not faulting anyone, it just wasn't planned for 7 billion people.

    5. Re: There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not going to want to move the train to offload each car from the wagon. So either your ramp needs to move to each car somehow, or your wagon needs to be able to move its entire car-carrying surface to align each car with the ramp. If the ramp moves, you need more space at its base if it just moves horizontally, and more moving parts if it somehow swivels/extends to meet each car.

      Then you have to deal with the next wagon. Do you advance the train, or do you have multiple articulated ramps (one per wagon)? How many wagons worth of loading/unloading docks do you build? How do all of these feed together into one entry/exit road?

      I feel like in the end you're going to have something like a system to load containers onto ships, and it's going to be crazy complicated.

      Now if you could move the train safely and reliably at one car-width increments, this could work. Then the cars can sit in one queue, popping on as the train advances an open slot to them, and they can disembark the same way.

    6. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I was once working at an office that was across the street from a train station, and was next to a hospital... and between the hospital and train station there were multiple bus lines that converged within a block of my office. There was also bus stop less than 100 feet from my front door.

      However, because my morning commute would be eastbound, and NYC is to the west - and so virtually all public transport was optimized for conveying people westward in the morning - it was literally impossible for me to take any combination of bus or train to work. With the schedules ans service routes as they were, I would have to leave for work before I had gotten home from the previous day.

      It was also too far to reasonably commute by bike, to say nothing of the weather not being very cooperative most of the year. It was also somewhat common that I'd need to leave the office to visit a job site, which again limited my public transit options.
      =Smidge=

    7. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by filesiteguy · · Score: 2

      You bring up a valid point. In my experience, transit is designed to run with 1800's factory hours - 8:00 am to 6:00 pm in a downtown metropolis. Outside of that, results are sketchy.

    8. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      See, the issue is how the developers organically designed cities.

      "Organically"? Are you serious?

      If cities didn't force developers to build more parking than the developer's own customers want, would you still drive everywhere without a guarantee of a cheap place to store your vehicle at your destination?

      And without so much land wasted on vehicle storage, wouldn't there be more places within walking distance from any point? More jobs, more commerce, more grocery stores and entertainment venues, and more tax revenue? (Parking lots are non-places and pay hardly anything in taxes.)

      And with fewer people driving, wouldn't there be more demand for mass transit and therefore more frequent service, more transit stations, and faster and more direct routes from A to B?

      Organic? No, what I see around me is not organic development but the polar opposite!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    9. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's even worse when you have transfers. I can drive to work in 45 minutes, but it would take over 2.5 hours each way with mass transit. I'd have to take the Sounder train to get to Seattle which runs every 25 minutes then light rail to get to near Univ of Wash then a bus that runs every thirty minutes.

      Also, the last Sounder train leaves at 6:30pm and it takes about 1.5 hours to get to it, that means I would have to leave work before 5pm every day. That's in best case assuming the schedules align.

    10. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Not to mention LA's "Everyone wants to go downtown" mentality.

      For those not familiar with LA, there are essentially three urban/suburban centers there. Downtown, the Westside, and the Valley.

      The major artery between the Westside and the Valley is the 405 Freeway, which essentially exists in a state of eternal gridlock.

      The only direct transit existing between those two areas is by bus, which means you're stuck on the 405.

      If you want to use rail, you have to take a bus from the Valley to North Hollywood (granted, it has its own dedicated busway, but it doesn't have right-of-way, it has to wait to cross streets), then the Red Line to downtown, and then the Expo line to the West Side.

      Not to mention that LA is one of the only major cities with train transit that does NOT go directly to the airport.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by sconeu · · Score: 1

      DING DING DING DING!!!!

      I used to live two blocks from a train station (LA County Metrolink), and my work was also a few blocks from a Metrolink station. I *WANTED* to take the train to work, but it was the wrong direction -- it was going "outbound" in the AM in "inbound" in the afternoon. There were practically no trains going in the direction I needed, so I had to drive (20+ mile commute).

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    12. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This seems bizarre to me in the UK. The trains here go to the end of the line (inbound), turn around, go back (outbound), turn around, and go back again (inbound). There are more trains in peak times, but the numbers going either way are the same. The ones taken off during offpeak wait at the end of the line until the next peak period.

      The trains on a route are also split in two - half will be fast on one half of the route and the other on the other half. That means shorter journey times if you live further out and if you do need to go from a station on one half to a station on the other half you swap at the half-way station where the trains run in sync so you can swap over quickly.

    13. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Hang on. Riding 5 miles is any 30 minutes at a moderate pace. So it takes the train 2.5 hours to cover the remainder of that 17 miles?

      Sounds like it goes in the opposite direction and loops back or something.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      True! I have family in Manchester, Leeds, and Burnley. Getting around in London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham is super easy.

    15. Re: There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm that size and fit fine. Except I'm not fat. ;-)

    16. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't speak for the parent but I can speak as a parent giving a similar example for my daughter.

      We live one block from a bus stop. The college she attends is 17.3 miles away. By bus the one way transit time is typically 2 hours 17 minutes. In this particular case it's a fairly direct route (no loop backs, etc) however it requires uses three different bus lines as the route crosses several cities. The bus schedules simply do not line up nicely at the two transfer locations and ignore any delays or buses simply skipping stops.

      By car the drive time is typically 21 minutes a saving of almost 4 hours a day in transit!

      It's very convenient living close to a bus route but once the destination is outside the route mass transit becomes a huge unrecoverable time sink!

    17. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hang on. Riding 5 miles is any 30 minutes at a moderate pace. So it takes the train 2.5 hours to cover the remainder of that 17 miles?

      Sounds like it goes in the opposite direction and loops back or something.

      He said train to light rail to bus

    18. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parking spaces exist because of demand. Space would not be filled in with more stores. Stores need a certain sized customer base to work economically. They're spread out based on market size, not on lack of more locations being possible.

    19. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Parking spaces exist because of demand.

      No, they exist because of laws forcing developers to build them. Name your city and state, and I will find that law in your city's building or zoning code.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    20. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The fact that regulations exist doesn't mean that parking lots exist only because of regulations.
      If what you claim is true, the first parking lot would have come about after the first law demanding that it exist.

      Didn't happen that way, bub.

    21. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dayton, TN. Have fun, asshole.

    22. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Ichijo · · Score: 1
      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    23. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      If parking lots would exist even without regulations, then do you agree that those regulations are unnecessary?

      Who is more qualified to determine how many parking spaces a store should provide for its customers, the owner of the store or a formula written in the city's municipal code?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    24. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by CWCheese · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason LA trains don't go to LAX is the powerful taxicab commission that has spent decades lobbying the city to keep the trains at least 2 miles outside the airport so they can carry the passengers the final distance. Only the future Olympics (2028) has finally caused a slight break in that firewall; the city is extending light rail to a station 1 mile from LAX, and are building a brand new people-mover train from the station into LAX. So, the airline passenger can take the light rail all the way to the Crenshaw station, get out and transfer into a people mover to the airport, letting you off inside the center of the horseshoe so you can walk to one of the 8 terminals to get to your flight. If they are true to form, it will be like North Hollywood where you have to walk across a wide boulevard to make the transfer.

      --
      Have a Day!
    25. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I would agree regulation requiring the building of parking lots that don't currently exist to be unnecessary for everything beyond to serve government buildings, offices, services, etc. (DMV, Post Office - yes, it's part of the government even if it's privately administered, etc.)

    26. Re: There is also the issue of urban planning by nten · · Score: 1

      Or you have a different leg to torsoe ratio. I fit in my miata just fine, but I'm all legs and my friend who is all torso but the same height has his head bent and touching the roof.

      --
      refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    27. Re: There is also the issue of urban planning by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's common for raised train platforms (or surface platforms by subsurface tracks) to be 10 or more train cars long. That sounds like simultaneous loading/unloading of about 80 automobiles would be easy.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Parking lots are subject to the free rider problem, laws tend to ameliorate the problem. Laws for adequate parking space also help compensate for changed parking requirements when a building's use changes. For instance, law may require a warehouse builder to provide more parking than a warehouse needs, to cover the possibility that the warehouse is turned into a shopping mall.

      Parking is also a safety issue. Roadside parking can be hazardous. Some business owners are unscrupulous, and to lower costs will build without a parking lot, forcing customers to park on the road.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    29. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I've found that parked cars are a greater danger to bicycles than cars speeding past me. The driver parks and opens his door without looking behind him. Splat.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    30. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      For instance, law may require a warehouse builder to provide more parking than a warehouse needs, to cover the possibility that the warehouse is turned into a shopping mall.

      Do you really think someone would open a shopping mall without adequate parking? Is forcing companies to succeed a legitimate function of government?

      Roadside parking can be hazardous.

      Everything on the road can be a hazard, even other cars. So the word "hazardous" is meaningless in this context.

      Some business owners are unscrupulous, and to lower costs will build without a parking lot, forcing customers to park on the road.

      How hard is it to put up a "no parking" sign?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    31. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Curious - do they have express trains? The Washington DC subway, the black people insisted that they put stations in low income neighbourhoods. Riding into the city, nobody would get on. Yet we had to stop. Station after station after station. Then we'd FINALLY hit DC where people would get off. They need express trains. Skip all the crap stations. Then it would be fast.
      So when are those stations used? Why after rush hour of course. The criminals get on, go back out to the suburbs and burglerize houses.

    32. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just ride your bike all the way! 17 miles, once you get into shape, should take you about 90 minutes so admittedly twice as long but in exchange you'll get healthier, be more focused at work and save tons of money.

    33. Re:There is also the issue of urban planning by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Actually, in NoHo, there are two exits from the Red Line, one on each side of Lankershim. So you could go under, and then come back up to cross over.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    34. Re: There is also the issue of urban planning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I thought creimer was 5' 10". Or are you just being an obnoxious prick to everyone now?

  5. Henry Ford and cheap autos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mass transit is a collective ideal. Many individuals prefer to have control over there transportation and if cost is sufficiently low they chose to drive themselves.

    1. Re: Henry Ford and cheap autos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That âoelow costâ is a fallacy. Itâ(TM)s just that the cost is being borne by others and rarely by the actual auto driver. Roads and the infrastructure to make them viable are incredibly expensive.

  6. Bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not bad its a fucken disaster with a quality comparable to third word country!

  7. Because people use it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're so far past design capacity we might as well not even have a mass transit system.

  8. Usually not worth it... by RyanRife8866 · · Score: 0

    I would take mass transit but to get from my house to my job, which is a brutal 15 mile drive takes about 2.5hrs on the bus due to poorly aligned bus stops vs ~1hr driving.

    1. Re: Usually not worth it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus pickpockets and getting harassed

    2. Re:Usually not worth it... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      As the article explained, the long times and poor scheduling are a result of poor transit policy in America.

      Other places have done much better, and American transit could rival them if we choose to invest in it appropriately.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    3. Re:Usually not worth it... by g01d4 · · Score: 2

      ...the long times and poor scheduling are a result of poor transit policy in America

      For cities like LA, with a few exceptions, there's no practical solution involving public transport as it's impossible to cover either a) the large distances required without making several stops and/or transfers and/or b) the last mile (in reality two or three) to get to one's destination. What's left is to encourage policies that reduce the need use roads regardless of the means of transport. Not as simple.

  9. Socialism, it's just for bail outs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The poor should walk to work uphill, in the snow, both ways, like the rich do. #MAGA

  10. They have been broken by design by stikves · · Score: 1

    Our current city / suburb design does not allow proper public transportation, but requires us to drive everywhere in personal vehicles. The place where people live, where they work, and where they spend their times are too far away, and not coordinated.

    Back in time, the malls were actually designed to solve this problem by having enclosed living spaces. However given tax incentives that business had there, malls are currently (almost) always used by shopping, and not a tiny city as initially envisioned.

    Also cities, especially here in Bay Area, want to have business offices built without supporting housing inside their limits. This causes a big unbalance. Also public transport are a patchwork of uncoordinated systems, where even biking to a place can take much less than using public transport. People voted for this system, and people got what they asked for.

    1. Re:They have been broken by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the only mode of transportation public (trolleys, street cars, buses, subway), housing, jobs, and recreation tend to sprout up along those lines. Alternately, public transport will build out a line to any large center for work/play/live. Nobody will spend money build a large central attraction that is impossible to get to.

      The problem is that once you have a car then you are no longer limited by available public transport routes and you can go anywhere. That makes it feasible to build attractions that are not on public transport routes. And once some critical mass of people has cars, you can start building things any place you want, and public transport can't keep up.

      When there's a small set of places to live and a small set of places to work, it's easy to make lines that go between them efficiently. Once it's possible to live anywhere and work anywhere else, there's no efficient set of routes that connect them all, so it's inefficient to use even if you have lines to every place. Plus the additional traffic caused by all those cars make the buses slower, and thus begins the death spiral.

      Having places where people can live and work is great for the culture of 100 years ago when most households only had a single person who went to work and stayed at that job until they retired. Nowadays, however, the odds that somebody will be able to coordinate where they live with where they work is impossibly small. I, for one, do not want to have to move every time I switch jobs or my employer moves to a different building. You may be able to do it for yourself, but will you be able to coordinate it for your spouse also?

      dom

    2. Re:They have been broken by design by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Alternately, public transport will build out a line to any large center for work/play/live. Nobody will spend money build a large central attraction that is impossible to get to.

      So public transport will build out to any large central attraction, but nobody will build a large central attraction that doesn't have transportation to it?
      Considering public buses exist, you're wrong.

      People wouldn't be going to vineyards or berry farms or west of the fucking Mississippi if your logic held.

    3. Re:They have been broken by design by catprog · · Score: 1

      Nope the transport in that case is car. (see the 2nd paragraph)

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    4. Re:They have been broken by design by sexconker · · Score: 1

      And they go on roads. And if there are roads, buses will be run.

  11. its best that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    commuters get frustated and start driving themselves, exxon mobil and the bush bros said its good for their economy, also helps give us reason for more war to get the petrodollar movin

  12. leftist drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh bullshit. Yes, it's being borne by the rich people, not the actual driver, but given that most people drive, and everyone else takes a bus that goes on the same road, the cost is carried by the drivers.

    1. Re:leftist drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the cost is carried by the drivers.

      Bullshit.

    2. Re:leftist drivel by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Fail. The person you responded to said:

      most people drive, and everyone else takes a bus that goes on the same road, the cost is carried by the drivers

      The link you provided is bitching and moaning that the general tax payer is picking up the slack and it's not tied to miles driven.
      Most people drive or make use of public roads. Thus having taxpayers pay for them, while not ideal, is not a refute of the other AC's claim. (He should have said drivers & riders, but that was clearly the intent with the mention of buses.)

  13. I'm an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I'm too fat to fit on the train carriage.

    1. Re: I'm an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I am an American and I can afford my own car even if I am a poor person. Sorry you can't in your country.

    2. Re:I'm an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit, Americans don't ever say "train carriage."

    3. Re: I'm an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's highly doubtful that "poor people" can afford to park their cars in NYC or SF.

      If you live in bumfuck flyover state you can afford a car, and park it behind the barn where you finger bang your sister.

    4. Re:I'm an American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Southern here, yes we do.

  14. Have they... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0

    >> Operations -- the actual running of buses and trains frequently enough to appeal to people with an alternative -- are perpetually starved for cash.

    Here are some things to try (at least with bus systems):
    1) Eliminate unions and pensions for drivers/maintenance. These are often quite expensive.
    2) Thin the layers of management. Quite a few of these people exist for the purposes of fattening up their own pensions.
    3) Optimize routes to actual use. Day-long routes are still quite common even though most of the time the busses are empty when the commute is not happening.
    4) Replace the least-used bus routes with subsidized route sharing. Better service for customers, less fuel/pollution.

    Urban above-ground trains are really quite pointless - see Seattle/Milwaukee/etc. but if you have a dense area subways are nice. (See DC, London, NYC, etc.) Here again, though, you can keep costs down by automating and avoiding staffing.

    Let me know when you've tried all these and I'll be happy to help you get more cash!

    1. Re:Have they... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      1) Eliminate unions and pensions for drivers/maintenance. These are often quite expensive.

      Let ensure everyone working at the transit is an illegal alien who doesn't care about anything. Benefits are for losers, no one in a government job should make more than minimum wage without benefits to ensure all government employees are the absolute bottom of the barrel. We can save even MORE money using prisoners for drivers, I suggest we hire from the sex offenders.

      2) Thin the layers of management. Quite a few of these people exist for the purposes of fattening up their own pensions.

      Let make sure if an driver is sick they have to call and 800 number to call in sick and there is no one to replace them on the route. Cause management of any kind is highly overrated

      Optimize routes to actual use. Day-long routes are still quite common even though most of the time the busses are empty when the commute is not happening.

      So your idea is to only provide service during the commute and anyone that needs to use the bus when it's not commute time can just go fuck themselves.

      4) Replace the least-used bus routes with subsidized route sharing. Better service for customers, less fuel/pollution.

      Lets ensure least used areas now have a subsidy that will entice ride sharing services to game the system and increase costs for their own profit at tax payer expense. Lets just give big piles of cash to Uber and Lyft, I'm sure it won't be abused.

      Do you have a subscription service for these ideas of yours? They are so good I'm sure they could win some sort of award.

  15. We allowed it to be private, then let it collapse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many US cities had streetcar lines up until the 50s/60s. They were by and large privately owned, later bought by GM/Firestone, and went bust to be replaced by busses, which required tires. So the cities tore out miles and miles of track.

    Stupid right? It's a failure of government that just wanted to move on to cars, and didn't see any value in buying this infrastructure (already on the publicly owned and maintained streets).

    The US has long had this fantasy that everything can just be done by private enterprise. For some things it's true. I'm not a fan of government telecom owned telecom monopolies or the government owned energy monopoly in Mexico. But some things provide positive externalities like transit, or roads or bridges really should be owned and operated by the government.

    Most other countries figured this out long ago. We still thought we could give short shrify to transit, and hope people just get along with cars, and move further and further away (some weird obsession with wanting more property).

  16. Public transport means less debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the last thing you want in the money-grabbing pit that the capitalistic asshole of the world America is, is households with savings.

    By instead making everyone buy their own car and spend money on an arm and a leg on gas and service, you satisfy capitalism and your corporate overlords. There's no money in building efficient public transport, simply.

    1. Re: Public transport means less debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See an earlier post in this comment section by someone who did the math: public transport can easily cost MORE than using a car.

      Once you factor in the govt subsidies, it certainly does.

      Public transport fails economically.

    2. Re: Public transport means less debt by XXongo · · Score: 1

      See an earlier post in this comment section by someone who did the math: public transport can easily cost MORE than using a car.

      It really depends on locality to locality, and also on where you live chose to live that locality. There are places where having a car is unnecessary, and it's expensive to own one, and others where it is highly necessary.

      Where I live now you really need a car. There is mass transit, but it stops 3 miles or so away from my work, and also three miles away from my house.

      On the other hand, I've also worked places where the nearest parking space is a mile or more away from work, and the cost of parking would have been more than the cost of a car.

  17. Transit in Utah by Tog+Klim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Transit Utah is surprisingly good for mountain state.

    I used it to commute for several years. The problem was the increased time spent in the commute.

    Using the trains my commute was 1.5 hours from my door to my office. On motorcycle it is 45 minutes. In a car it was someplace in between. They offered wifi on the train, but the quality was too poor to do anything beyond a git push, email or basic browsing. Forget using a VPN. To make the train time useful I had to save work for the train. If I didn't have that kind of work to do, then the extra hour and half was coming out of my personal time. (my quality of life)

    Now I work closer to home. Self transport is 15-20 minutes now. Mass transit is 50 minutes but only runs twice a day. But even if it was every ten minutes, I wouldn't do it because I want to be productive.

    Self transport (Automobile/Motorcycle) equates to freedom in the US; go where you want when you want.

    Mass transport puts you on someone else's schedule instead of your own.

    Mass transit can't seem to function in the US because there is just too much space to cover. For densely populated areas there is enough mass to make it work. Without the population density, it cannot make enough money to pay it's own bills, so it naturally fails unless it is propped up by a government.

    1. Re:Transit in Utah by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Utah isn't America, it is flyoverstan. Infrastructure doesn't work there because flyoverstan refuses to pay for it. They get scared of any bill for an amount that they cant stuff in a cattle skin. NYC has a nice system interconnected to a variety of areas. In NYC everyone takes the subway from the fry cook, to the mid level exec earning 300k. The subway works just fine, everyone takes it for work. In my 4 years living there I never once met someone who didn't fall into two catagories. 1) Walked to work, 2) took public transport. Boston has a hub and spoke system which is only useful if you are going to or from downtown. As such any job that is not centered in downtown, the public transport system becomes useless. The DC system was fine when I visited.

    2. Re: Transit in Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for disproving the stereotype of the bombastic New Yorker who thinks the world begins and ends in New York City.

    3. Re: Transit in Utah by plague911 · · Score: 1

      There is plenty to the world. There is a myriad of wonderful and interesting locations thought the world. Europe has its rustic locations, Asia has impressive megacities, South America has interesting cultural celebrations . The US has the NYC and Californian megalopolises. The rest of the US is flyoverstan with an education system on par with the poorest of third world nations.

    4. Re:Transit in Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Utah isn't America, it is flyoverstan. Infrastructure doesn't work there because flyoverstan refuses to pay for it. They get scared of any bill for an amount that they cant stuff in a cattle skin. NYC has a nice system interconnected to a variety of areas. In NYC everyone takes the subway from the fry cook, to the mid level exec earning 300k. The subway works just fine, everyone takes it for work. In my 4 years living there I never once met someone who didn't fall into two catagories. 1) Walked to work, 2) took public transport. Boston has a hub and spoke system which is only useful if you are going to or from downtown. As such any job that is not centered in downtown, the public transport system becomes useless. The DC system was fine when I visited.

      I know many New Yorker's who have transferred to Salt Lake City and would never ever move back. They love it there.
      Great quality of life.

    5. Re: Transit in Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    6. Re: Transit in Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And apparently the rest of the world is populated with arrogant idiots.

    7. Re:Transit in Utah by walllaby · · Score: 1

      Self transport (Automobile/Motorcycle) equates to freedom in the US; go where you want when you want.

      This, more than anything.

      The advent of cheap automobiles in the 50s (and ads by those automobiles to get out and see the country) really spurred car use. You could pack the family in the Buick, drive out to the Grand Canyon, picnic in the park, see the lights of Las Vegas, then head home and do it again next Summer. It appealed to the Manifest a Destiny lineage of white America. The All-American Road Trip. Hell, I felt it until I finally took a road trip on Route 66 a couple of years ago to see the SouthWest. There is something special about heading out on your own to see the natural wonders of our country.

    8. Re:Transit in Utah by walllaby · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, Utah is amazing. Try being the only state with a half dozen national parks within driving distance of each other. Grand Canyon, Cedar Breaks, Zion, Bryce Canyon, you can get to all of these while staying in southern Kanab.

    9. Re: Transit in Utah by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      You aren't wrong. People who live there are fanatical about being stuck in a perpetual cycle of renting a shitty apartment for $4000 a month, so they can enjoy smoke, urine, crowds, and urine, ie. the streets.

      The subway system is more of the same. No guidance about how to pay or navigate the thing, pervasive filth. 25% of the trips I've taken on it I've seen someone in my party groped by a stranger.

    10. Re:Transit in Utah by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      But even if it was every ten minutes, I wouldn't do it because I want to be productive.

      And how productive are you in your car? Why does taking mass transit have to be a situation where you are productive or you aren't taking it? Doesn't the reduction of stress from not driving count for something? Why not do something for yourself on the time the bus or train? Read a book, meditate, look up ideas for a project or holiday, or anything else that you don't seem to have time for during the day.

    11. Re: Transit in Utah by Tog+Klim · · Score: 1

      You've got some points. Of that 50 minute bus commute, 25 minutes is spent walking to and from the bus stop. Taking a walk is great! But I'd rather do it with my family and dogs than with a backpack full of work gear. Let alone early in the morning snow in the winter. I'm one of the people who enjoys driving, or riding my motorcycles. It IS a way for me to get away. This place isn't over crowded and the commute is 15-20 minutes via self transport. The buses are not nice spaces where you go to relax or meditate. They are discomfort on wheels. You are correct that I could read a book for the 25 minutes each way. But I would rather do that in a nice place without the bouncing and bustle. Since I have an extra hour in my day because I didn't spend it on the commute; I can do whatever I want or need in a nice place for that hour. But since the bus only runs twice a day and it isn't even I need it, there's no way to find out. There aren't enough people to fill the buses enough to make them viable. They would be running empty burning more diesel and consuming more resources than they can ever save.

  18. NYC 1975 vs Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was a teenager in NYC, one could walk up to a subway platform and count on a train showing up in 3-5 minutes.

    Today, that time is more like 10-30 minutes, depending on how broke the MTA is from it's monthly pension obligations that month.

    The reasons ridership is down is because it's faster to simply walk or to take a cab.

    Mass transit suffers from the Amtrak problem. It is unable to provide adequate service because 80% of its budget is spend paying the unsustainable pension promises of yesteryear, and paying absurd salaries to current employees. Seriously, clerks working in MTA token booths get a compensation package worth well in excess of $100K per year, just to change US currency into subway tokens.

    Fix that problem, and you fix mass transit.

    1. Re:NYC 1975 vs Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, why aren't you working as a token exchanger if it is that good?

    2. Re:NYC 1975 vs Today by registrations_suck · · Score: 2

      Same reason why I'm not living large as a drug dealer, rakin' in the dough.

      Money isn't everything, it's not, how I want to spend my time, and I actually have some other options available to me.

    3. Re:NYC 1975 vs Today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, clerks working in MTA token booths get a compensation package worth well in excess of $100K per year, just to change US currency into subway tokens.

      Fix that problem, and you fix mass transit.

      Is that the problem? Or the fact that you aren't? If Americans had proper retirement from the government like we have elsewhere, then it would be less of an issue.

    4. Re:NYC 1975 vs Today by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Take a cab? First, jump out in front of one; that's the only way to get one to stop. Deal with the driver pretending to not know where your destination is, and hitting the vehicle's horn 7-8 times a minute while you're stuck in gridlock.

      Rather than fixing the symptoms, fix the *problems*:

      1) Stop forcing people to live in greater NYC
      2) If they're afflicted with Stockholm syndrome and choose to stay there for some bizarre reason, don't make them travel to an office so they can sit in front of a computer all day.

  19. Re: Americans don't really care about their countr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent wrote:
    "America is a real shit hole, with rampant crime (largest prison population in the world!)"

    These two things have nothing to do with each other. Those in prison are **not committing any crime** outside it.

    Use your brain, dude.

  20. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by tepples · · Score: 1

    Does "cheaper" include the thousands for driver's ed (in countries and subsovereign regions that require 100+ verifiable hours of supervised driving before licensure), thousands for a car, and thousands for required insurance?

  21. Lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason is that public transportation only works when combined with walking or bicycling. Not everyone can have a bus stop directly in front of their front door, so people may have to walk up to 15 minutes as part of their commute. The average American won't sign up for a plan like that.

  22. Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by timholman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once cars arrived, nearly every U.S. transit agency slashed service to cut costs, instead of improving service to stay competitive.

    That statement presupposes that "improving service" could ever have allowed mass transit to keep up. How do you "compete" with personal transit that takes you from door to door, on your own schedule, day or night, from the convenience of your own home, without having to worry about being assaulted or robbed by someone riding with you? It was inevitable that mass transit would lose out when automobiles came on the scene.

    The problem with the mass transit debate is two-fold:

    (1) It is dominated by people who moan and moralize about what other people "ought" to be doing, rather than what they choose to do as a matter of personal convenience and time savings.

    (2) Many of the people doing the moaning and moralizing don't believe in eating the dog food being served to the plebes; they drive their own vehicles. You see, their personal time is extremely valuable, even if they don't consider yours to be.

    There is no "conspiracy" against mass transit. Commuters are quite capable of making their own choices about the quickest, safest, most convenient way to getting from point A to point B. Mass transit just can't compete with personal transportation, except in the very densest urban environments.

    1. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by DogDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mass transit just can't compete with personal transportation, except in the very densest urban environments

      Spoken as somebody who's never been out of the US, I'm willing to bet.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article? It is very specifically NOT "moaning and moralizing" but instead arguing that the reason that mass transit has failed is because it is less convenient, and by making it quicker, safer, and more convenient, we can drive demand.

    3. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      What do you do when you want to go home after 11pm? Subway's closed. Buses stop. A $50 cab ride?

      What if you're not rich and can't afford an apartment next to the subway station? It's a 15 minute walk each way, every day: in the rain, in the snow, in the baking heat. Then you get to stand up in a crowded car because all the seats are taken. To say nothing of traveling with stinky people who may vomit on you.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Mass transit can compete with personal transport just fine.

      Look at Japan. Train stations are major hubs. They often build a shopping centre on top of the station, and offices around it. Bus companies link up to get people further out. Any new development makes sure it has regular bus/real links and sells that as a benefit of living there - sail past the people stuck in their cars on congested roads with a rail track or purpose built bus lane.

      The mistake other countries make is trying to graft on public transport later. Train companies in particular miss a trick by not using the land the station is built on for 10 floors of retail too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Modern societies have transportation that runs late into the night, or even 24/7.

      What's so bad about a 15 minute walk? I'd prefer that to the hours I waste in a car every day.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    6. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's all about the cost. In the US cars are so cheap that the density has to be much higher to justify the switch to public transport. In Europe the licensing and taxes make private car use sufficiently expensive that the density doesn't have to be as high to make public transport work.

      When I decide whether to take a car or bus, I have to factor in cost (fuel, parking, and tolls vs. fare) against the convenience (walking to/from, parking, waiting, traffic). In sufficiently dense environments the cost of a car goes up and the convenience goes down. In Europe, the cost of a car starts higher than it does in the US, so the density doesn't have to be as high to overcome it.

      dom

    7. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mass transit just can't compete with personal transportation, except in the very densest urban environments

      Spoken as somebody who's never been out of the US, I'm willing to bet.

      In a very dense urban environment I'd rather not drive due to congestion and parking hassles. Walking and mass transit make sense.

      Outside that driving my personal vehicle is much better.
      Sure, I could walk or bike a few miles to a bus or train. Or I could just drive my car directly to my destination.

      That's why Mass transit just can't compete with personal transportation, except in the very densest urban environments

    8. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Meh, my commute is fine by public transport. Can't really complain about any part of it but it has a really hard time competing against the convenience when I've already paid all most the costs for my car, the deprecation, insurance, parking, a lot of the maintenance etc. and really it's mostly just gas money that is the marginal cost to drive. But the alternatives - taxis, renting or car sharing - are all a bit expensive or tedious. I hope that Waymo will eventually manage to provide a hybrid service - you simply summon the car, you can drive it outside the geo-fenced area and when you return you can just get out at home and the car will return to base.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      (1) It is dominated by people who moan and moralize about what other people "ought" to be doing,

      No, it's dominated by people who assume the only way they know is the only way thats possible.

      That statement presupposes that "improving service" could ever have allowed mass transit to keep up.

      It has more than done so in other countries.

      How do you "compete" with personal transit that takes you from door to door, on your own schedule, day or night,

      How do you compete with being able to ride absolutely sozzled or not getting stuck for an hour in a traffic jam at rush hour?

      without having to worry about being assaulted or robbed by someone riding with you?

      I've never been assulted on public transport. I ride every day for work and I used to commute past Millwall, sometimes at match times. Maybe I dunno you're doing a crap job of pblic transport and assuming that being crap is the only way.
      It was inevitable that mass transit would lose out when automobiles came on the scene.

      And yet many major metropolitan areas in other parts of the world have large, efficient, effective and expanding mass transit schemes.

      Mass transit just can't compete with personal transportation, except in the very densest urban environments

      Of which there are plenty but the mass transit is still rubbish.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There is no "conspiracy" against mass transit.

      Conspiracies against mass transit in America have a long history, and they continue today. You literally could not be more wrong.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been to Japan. By American standards the mass transit is a failure. Had to take private transport to meet business needs over 80 per cent of the time. They may put up with it but we never would.

    12. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read other comments in this thread. There provably demonstrably are and have been conspiracies against mass transit. Car and tire company shills historically got elected to city transport boards cynically reducing or eliminating mass transit to encourage people to buy cars. Currently the Koch brothers actively campaign successfully against public transport.

      And public transport works very well in many European cities, much better than in typical US cities, far fewer people feel the need to own cars, transport is used by all kinds of people (not just poor people as people in the US associate it), and as a happy side effect of fewer cars and fewer very wide streets and giant parking lots to support all the cars, the cities are more pedestrian friendly.

      I owned a car my entire adult life in the US. I moved to Europe 13 years ago and have been happily car-free all this time.

    13. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Because a 15 minute walk really gets dull and tedious after a while. Walking past the same shitty shops, waiting on the same goddamned traffic lights, trying not to get hit by drivers who don't pay attention...it gets old. It has the effect of making you stay home instead of do that damn walk again. Which is just one of the many things that sucks about public transportation.

      No city I've ever lived in has subways that run after midnight, or honestly 11pm is the last time you can realistically get to where you're going because of transfers. If you're going to bash places as "not modern societies" then that really gets into bigotry and I don't know if that was your intention or not, but it puts you in company with some really ugly people. Or maybe you are one of them and you're just dog whistling.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been outside of US. And we know that the way e.g. Europe manages to keep mass transit popular, is by putting sky-high taxes on gas, and draconian restrictions on parking. Basically, if you deliberately design your society to be car-hostile, then year, public transportation suddenly becomes compatible.

    15. Re:Mass transit can't possibly "compete" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (2) Many of the people doing the moaning and moralizing don't believe in eating the dog food being served to the plebes; they drive their own vehicles. You see, their personal time is extremely valuable, even if they don't consider yours to be.

      This right here is why my city never implemented light rail. They'd do surveys and find out there was tremendous support for a light rail system, but then they'd dig deeper and figure out that most people wanted light rail because they assumed it would reduce traffic on the major roads, making it easier for them to drive on. IOW, everyone who was pro light rail assumed everyone ELSE would ride the train - so actual ridership would have been non existent.

  23. go overseas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Germany, japan, Malaysia - all amazing mass transit.
    comfortable.
    reliable.
    very utilized.

    USA builds war machines and conducts pointless wars.

    The rest of the world builds amazing infrastructure

    1. Re:go overseas by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The money that the US spends to protect Germany and Japan allows Germany and Japan to spend money on infrastructure.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  24. Rural voters hold all the power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simple fact is that rural voters have SIGNIFICANTLY more democratic power in this country. Every rural voter has about 2 to 3 times more ability to elect people than the typical urban voter. As a result, priority is given towards issues that address rural concerns first and foremost.

    1. Re:Rural voters hold all the power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I'm surprised someone hasn't brought this up before. Rural voters are allowed to vote three times in each election, whereas urban voters are limited to one vote per person. Is that fair? I think not!

    2. Re:Rural voters hold all the power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/07/12/american-democracys-built-in-bias-towards-rural-republicans

      Couldn't expect the morons of Slashdot to understand anything more complicated than "suck it libs!"

  25. old cities by ArhcAngel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most large European cities were large long before the advent of the automobile. This meant their transit infrastructure was designed at most for horse and buggy. To build roads to accommodate automobiles would mean tearing down buildings to widen roads. America by contrast grew up with automobiles and wide open spaces so except for the North East coastal cities the roads are at least big enough for most passenger cars. Several other factors contributed to make mass transit less of a necessity leading to low ridership.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:old cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of them were left with large gaps in the 1940s'.

  26. Homeless and Criminals by Zorro · · Score: 1, Troll

    Last Choice method in the USA.

    Only the Homeless and Criminals use it.

    It is a NASTY dirty way to travel with lots of chances to get robbed or raped.

    Any POS car is FAR better and cleaner.

  27. Re:Americans don't really care about their country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but violent crime is way, way down: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-02-12/pssst-crime-may-be-near-an-all-time-low

  28. Because we're suckers for good marketing by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses. We are told we need cars to make us happy and productive - so we buy cars.

    Mass transit has no effective marketing. It's just there, like municipal water service. You can use it or ignore it. And as we keep telling people that the "good life" is outside the city - and hence outside the reach of many transit systems - they don't invest the effort in using them.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, single family homes are less oppressive and depressive than sardine-can apartment buildings in crowded noisy cities. I lived in both as a child and a parent, and I'll take the single-family home hands down. The downside is worsened walkability and mandatory car ownership (for those who hate driving), though both can be improved with smarter planning. Still worth the tradeoff.

    2. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.

      No, I've lived in apartments, and I dislike it. I like having my own space, and I dislike cramped apartment buildings. I'd love to use my car less, but the whole city is designed around having one. I live in the city, but my job is in the suburbs. The downtown property values are high, and suburbs had all this land, so businesses moved to them because it was cheap.

      It has little or nothing to do with marketing. It's mostly to do with decisions made decades ago.

    3. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by sootman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.

      Is that why we buy them? I bought mine so I wouldn't have to share walls with inconsiderate assholes.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    4. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses. We are told we need cars to make us happy and productive - so we buy cars.

      You clearly know what's best for everyone.

    5. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.

      Jeez, which one have you never lived in, a house or an apartment? The contrast is huge and has nothing to do with marketing.

    6. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses. We are told we need cars to make us happy and productive - so we buy cars. Mass transit has no effective marketing. It's just there, like municipal water service. You can use it or ignore it. And as we keep telling people that the "good life" is outside the city - and hence outside the reach of many transit systems - they don't invest the effort in using them.

      Or ... maybe some people actually just have preferences different from yours.

    7. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one told us that. We got annoyed with our apartment neighbours making sounds, but we realized that our own sounds were just as bad. So we did the only logical thing, move into a detached house. Now our dogs can bark, our babies can cry, we can practise the drums and throw parties. Life is good.

      Don't knock it just because you don't want it.

    8. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously? You think we buy houses because we're stupid and fall for marketing tricks? We buy houses because they're nice and have yards. Ever lived in an apartment and had the unit one floor up get renovated? 8am sanding and drilling? What about assholes who blast music at 2am? People the world 'round prefer single family dwellings. The largest they can afford. It's not some stupidity like you imply.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.

      Is that why we buy them? I bought mine so I wouldn't have to share walls with inconsiderate assholes.

      And does that make you happy-- not sharing walls with inconsiderate assholes?

      Coincidentally, that was a prime motivator for me too!

    10. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as we keep telling people that the "good life" is outside the city.

      That's odd. Out in rural areas we're told that the "good life" is all the culture and activities available to you in a city...

      I guess the grass really always is greener on the other side.

    11. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also the relentless attack by conservatives on public services in general, "The Democrats want to raise your taxes! How dare they take your hard-earned money and give you a good service at a fair cost! We won't have it!"

      And guess what? We don't have it.

      If Americans can be convinced that giving the government additional taxes is a good investment because they will save money elsewhere in their budget (car purchases, car repairs, gas), then we have a chance. But as it stands now, conservatives have done such a good job of fearmongering on taxes that almost no politician is willing to say they'll raise taxes on the rich even, let alone the middle class.

    12. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by eth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.

      Is that why we buy them? I bought mine so I wouldn't have to share walls with inconsiderate assholes.

      Also, a single-family home allows me to do things I enjoy that would make ME an inconsiderate asshole if I shared walls/floors/ceilings with someone.

    13. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally quite like not having upstairs, downstairs, rear, left and right neighbours. It's not a question of marketing, it's a matter of misanthropy. No marketing required, not for me at least. It's only a bonus that I can own a four bedroom detached home for the same price as a two bedroom appartment in the closest city to me.

    14. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so mean to them. They are, after all, subsidizing your house!

    15. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by apoc.famine · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You got decently shouted down on a lot of your stupid points, but I don't see this one covered:

      We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.

      And that's true. For most Americans, the only viable path to increasing wealth is home ownership. Paying someone else money (renting) does not make you wealthier. And this is especially true in retirement, when your income drops significantly.

      And yes, while you can make more money investing, buying a house is killing about three birds with one stone - you've got a place to live that's suitable to raise a family, you've got an investment vehicle, and you've got a retirement place or the ability to sell it and buy a cheaper, smaller one. And it's not uncommon for rent to be the same or even higher than mortgage payments, as often those renting are paying a mortgage and also trying to make a profit. That means most people can't cheap out on their housing cost and invest that money instead.

      There aren't many places in the US where buying a house is a poor financial decision. In the vast majority of places for the vast majority of people it's the most viable path to retiring decently wealthy.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    16. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses. We are told we need cars to make us happy and productive - so we buy cars.

      Who told you all this?

      I grew up in NYC. Now I live with my 4 kids in a nice suburb in a 3000 square foot house on an acre which nicely fits my swimming pool and 3 car garage that houses my cars, motorcycles, and other toys. I'm much happier where I live now, and I don't need public transit to get around.

    17. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by bobbutts · · Score: 1

      I bought after being forced out of a half dozen or so apartments for various reasons. One was leveled to build a larger apartment complex, a few were private landlords who decided to sell or occupy it themselves. That is what pushed me into home ownership.

    18. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      For most Americans, the only viable path to increasing wealth is home ownership

      That's true, because of your limited geographic mobility by virtue of owning a house, you are probably stuck in a low-paying job such that your only path to increasing wealth is home ownership. So it's a chicken-and-egg problem.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    19. Re: Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please!

      If you live in a major metro area you have your choice of employers. That's why so many people live in the SUBURBS of major cities.

    20. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walls AND the yard, AND the garage. Imagine that! Houses are nice places to live! LOL

    21. Re: Because we're suckers for good marketing by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      And that's why people who own their own homes in Cleveland are wealthier those who rent in San Jose!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    22. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by guruevi · · Score: 1

      He must still live in his mother's basement. It's great sharing a house if you don't have to pay for it.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    23. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it has been shown over and over again that a house is actually a terrible investment. People are finally starting to realize this. For decades the realtors and their marketing engine (which has included 24 hour cable networks for years) have been pushing this mythology on us; the myth is over and people are recognizing this. Even CDs that are selling at barely 1% interest in banks today do better over 30 years than the return on a 30 year mortgage; at best a homeowner can expect to pay off the mortgage and then make up enough difference in selling the house to cover what they paid in interest - essentially they've bet against themselves for 30 years and at the end the best they could hope for is to break even. Then once you factor in additional costs of home ownership you realize they fell behind rather badly.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    24. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      "good service at a fair cost"? Like public schools, where a person could earn far more than than national average income by teaching 3 children if he were paid as much as public schools charge to 'educate' them?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    25. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've owned four homes and made money on every single one of them, including interest costs. Way more money if you factor in not needing to pay rent.

      Renting can make sense short term or if the local real estate market is currently distorted/recovering from a distortion, but if you think renting long term on average is going to cost less than the person who owns the home you are renting is paying, you're wrong, especially if you add in the equity you'll get back when selling. When you rent, you pay all the costs of the owner (including the cost of capital, i.e. interest rates), plus an additional amount which represents their profit.

    26. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's more a problem with how US apartment buildings are built and maintained... not everywhere in the world is like that.

    27. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see your source for that claim.

      Here's a summery of the Federal Reserves' Survey of Consumer Finances: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      In 2016 the average net worth of a family who owned their own home stood at $231,400, according the Survey of Consumer Finances. Renters, by contrast, had a net worth of just $5,200.

      That's nearly a 45-fold difference, and the gap is getting bigger. From 2013 to 2016, the average net worth of homeowners rose by 15 percent. For renters it actually fell, by 5 percent.

      In inflation-adjusted terms, the average net worth of renters is at its lowest level since 1989.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    28. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      This. I had a townhouse; the other side was owned by a jerk who slammed his doors/cabinets and pounded up and down his stairs constantly.

      Then he left the country and had an agency bring in renters. I then had to deal with cigarette smoke that violated the CC&Rs, meat stench, and frat boy subwoofer-rap parties every weekend. They literally would pound on the walls when watching their sportsball.

      When I was starting out and lived in apartment, I had to deal with people stomping above me 24x7. From the other sounds I'm pretty sure there was a brothel there.

      When you live in an apartment, you can't fix anything and generally aren't allowed to even hang pictures on walls. Until relatively recently, single-family houses were the only way to *own* something vs the perpetual rent cycle that left you with no equity when you hit 70.

      Fuck shared walls.

    29. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Like having a family? A yard for your kid / dog to play in?

      In my case I have a family member who for reasons I won't go into is incompatible with shared walls/floors/ceilings.

    30. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up in a country where dense urban living is the norm. For most of my life, I lived in apartments.

      I don't need any marketing to learn that single-family houses are vastly preferable. And I'm glad that I now live in a country where I can afford one, and infrastructure is in place to make it viable.

      If only people like you weren't trying to ruin it...

    31. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      It's not hard to find sourced articles showing that home ownership is a losing investment. Here is a CNBC (note that this is the NBC business network, not the NBC network that conservatives love to trash for being "too liberal") article:

      it's better to rent than to buy in today's housing market

      But there have been plenty others in recent months and years that have done a more thorough mathematical workup of it. There is a long list of things that are better financial investments than houses and physical properties.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    32. Re:Because we're suckers for good marketing by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      That doesn't actually say what you think it says. Did you read any of it? Maybe starting with the title?

      It's better to rent than to buy in today's housing market.

      Temporarily, (for the first time since 2010, says your article) markets are outperforming equity in houses such that the economics of renting and investing are, at the moment, a better investment than owning. And your article doesn't say that home ownership is the losing investment that you claim.

      Still, even in places where renting is currently more affordable, rising home prices provide wealth-building opportunity for homebuyers.

      If you want to prove a point, you should probably cite something that supports your point rather than contradicts it.

      The article notes,

      Since homeownership has historically been an important source of household wealth creation, it could be problematic if this trend continues for too long.

      So starting a year ago, if you had the option to rent and invest or buy, you would have made a bit more money if you rented and invested. How long will that continue? Well, you need to be able to predict both the housing market and the stock market to make that call for the future. Can you do that?

      And how much more profitable would it be? The article doesn't go into it. Just that in 65% of their surveyed markets that it's cheaper to rent (not how much) than own. And where did they survey?

      In 16 of the 23 major metropolitan markets covered in the research, renting is a better investment than buying.

      Lol. This doesn't even cover the whole US. Just major cities. Which ones are more expensive?

      Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco and Seattle.

      And where is it better to own than rent?

      It is still, however, better to buy than rent in much of the Midwest and Northeast, with Chicago and Cleveland showing the best ownership scores.

      So even your source notes that it's really situational, and you can change the finances just by moving somewhere. Yes, in coastal cities and in fast growing cities, turns out renting is cheaper. In the rest of the US, it is not.

      A home is a long term investment, and there'd need to be a severe or prolonged downturn to make home ownership a losing investment. The last time it made sense to rent rather than own was nearly a decade ago, your article states. So you think you'd have done better renting over that time period? The source you cited says no.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  29. It's a Short Story by crow · · Score: 1

    As people switched to cars, mass transit agencies cut service to save money instead of expanding service to compete.

    If we want to make mass transit really work, we need to invest in it. In Boston, the infrastructure is ancient, many of the trains are extremely old, the service schedule is awkward, and the subway lines don't go far enough.

    After all these years of neglect, making a system that people really use is going to take a huge amount of money. That means new taxes, probably focused on car drivers, such as a tax on parking and a tolls for driving. That's not going to be popular, so the plan needs to have significant public support.

    Offhand, the changes needed would include expanding the various lines to run through several more towns. (The red line should go out to 128 and possibly then split to several routes heading out towards 495.) Consider new subway lines such as one running along 128 (meeting up with the green and red lines among other connections). The commuter rail needs to have more frequent trains so that people can just use it and not have to carefully plan travel around the train schedules. The user price of all this needs to be kept under the price of driving; I would argue that it would be worth considering making it free to use.

    Of course, the above outline for fixing the existing system might not be the right approach. Perhaps we should scrap the current system and build an entirely new one based on the Boring Company's model.

    I haven't studied the issue extensively, but there are plenty of solutions. The only question is whether we as a society value fixing the problem highly enough to pay for it.

    1. Re:It's a Short Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the old "we just need to throw more of the taxpayers' money at this problem" rathole. When has that ever worked?

  30. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, in the US, we don't have punitive gasoline taxes. Ours could be a little higher to transfer costs of road maintenance a little more reasonable, but it's not at all like the European countries with their "fuck you for escaping mass transit" fuel taxes. And no, the cost of gasoline is not higher in western Europe, the taxes are insane. US is on the order of 15-20% where in Germany it's 60% of the pump price. The cost of the gasoline is almost exactly the same.

  31. Re: Public transportation rigid and expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its cheaper and faster to take a train to the chicago loop...

  32. Re: Public transportation rigid and expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a difference between driving occasionally and driving excessively every day. Your commute is probably more expensive than your house: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-commuting/

  33. Demographics / geographics change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that one of the biggest impactors to mass transit is that we no longer have an industrialized work structure. With big industries, it became pretty common for people to live near work, where they essentially lived and worked for all of their lives.
    But with the advent of the car and non-industrialized business, people would change jobs and not move homes. And businesses became spread out, often so that the owner didn't have to commute far.
    So in today's environment, for most cities, mass transit doesn't work because it doesn't connect "home" with "work". In many areas, the subways are implemented in a spoke fashion. That assumes that people work at the center of the hub, but that's generally not the case. Quite often they live at the end of the spokes, or even well beyond the end of the spoke and work well beyond the end of the other spoke. So a trip from work to home means going way out of the way and taking much longer.

    One of the factors in this is that cities and communities tend to implement mass transit AFTER the area has grown. If it was implemented BEFORE, then people could move to more optimal locations.

    Also, LOTS of folks just don't like riding with herds of people. .

  34. Buses are like fat people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're slow
    They take up a lot of space
    They smell bad

    1. Re:Buses are like fat people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And trains aren't much better.

      Amtrak's Motto: "Passenger Safety - Fast Service: Take Your Pick"

    2. Re:Buses are like fat people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cars are fast.
      They fit perfectly in my garage.
      They are clean and smell nice.

      You can have your bus or train... I'll take my car.

  35. Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is one answer, plain and simple... FREEDOM. I want to travel where I went, when I want, by myself (or with chosen family/friends only).

    Nothing is absolute, but the fact that Americans largely prefer cars over Mass Transit is exactly that - the desire for freedom.

    I will leave it to the rest of the world to pack themselves in carriages under the control of others, at a schedule dictated by others, and shared with strangers.

    Yes, I am an American, and I will keep driving my cars (multiple) no matter what.

  36. Time is the problem by budsetr · · Score: 2

    If you have to take a bus that makes 20 stops before your stop then it's not worth it to ride. More express locations would help. I ride the bus. I drive my car 4 miles to an express pickup location with security monitored parking. That express goes straight downtown where I work in 17-20min, half the time it would take me to drive. (plus I don't have to deal with other drivers, can read a book, and get free wifi on the bus) If I had to take a non-express it would take about 2 hrs. Ain't nobody got time for that.

    1. Re:Time is the problem by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

      I live a 5 minute walk from a bus stop and 4.5 miles from "downtown" Pittsburgh.

      I can get to work on my motorcycle in 15 minutes and park for free. Round trip, that's 30 minutes and free (since cost of gas is virtually $0). And if I need to go somewhere during the day, I can do so, at my convenience, at no additional charge.

      I can get there on the bus in 30 minutes, for $2.75. The return trip is 40 minutes and another $2.75. Round trip, that's 70 minutes and $5.50. And that's if the bus is on time, and doesn't pass by the bus stop because it's already full. And if I need to go somewhere during the day, I have to pay to do so, and it's on someone else's schedule.

      Why the fuck would I take the bus?

    2. Re:Time is the problem by budsetr · · Score: 1

      You answered your own (fucking) question. It is faster (and cheaper) for you not to take the bus. For me it isn't,I live 22 miles from downtown. That should be the goal here: public transportation faster and cheaper.

  37. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Does "cheaper" include the thousands for driver's ed (in countries and subsovereign regions that require 100+ verifiable hours of supervised driving before licensure), thousands for a car, and thousands for required insurance?

    Yes. Though that's because in North America we don't require 100+ verifiable hours of supervised driving. But then again, even with that, it would be cheaper. My commute was from Kitchener, Ontario to the Pearson Airport area, Mississauga, Ontario. For items that have a daily fee, we will assume 22 workdays a month.

    Here's what my choice for commute was last year (all prices $CAD, rounded):

    New Car (Let me know if you think I missed any expenses):

    $200 a month for a 5 year loan on a brand new car with a 5 year warranty. 3 years of oil changes included. After 3 years I would buy 6 oil changes a year @ $35 each, for a total of $7 a month.
    1 brake job during that time for $400, or $7 a month
    1 gear oil change during that time for $100, or $2 a month
    5 plate renewals at $138 a year, or $12 a month
    4 sets of tires at $350 a set, or $24 a month
    Insurance for $850 a year, or $71 a month
    $2000 sale price at the end of 5 years, or -$34 a month
    Gasoline consumption per month was $250
    Drive time: 1.5 hours each way
    Total: $539 a month

    Public transit:

    GRT pass: $86 a month. 15 to 30 minutes commute to Go Train Station.
    Go Transit: $561 a month (Trips 1 through 35 are full price, trips 36 to 40 are about $2, and my last 4 trips are free. No monthly available). 1.5 hour commute to Union Station.
    TTC pass: $147 a month. 45 minute bus ride to Pearson.
    Commute time: Over 2.5 hours each way
    Total: $794 a month

    If I included a local pass for my other family members (who don't have one because they just use the car when I'm home) you can add $86 + $73 a month. So in reality, for me, my total savings is $414 a month, and will be so for 40 years. Did you spend $16,560 to get your driving skills? Not that it matters because many jobs here require a driver's license even if you don't drive because they want to be sure you'll show up to work on time.

    I chose the items the Ontario government pumps massive amounts of cash into. The Go Line I chose had $2 billion pumped into it last year. The TTC has money pumped into it like it's going out of style. GRT had almost $1 billion pumped into it for train tracks. These prices are *discounted* because they actually would cost a lot more if taxes weren't funding the projects.

    Remember, this is literally the most fully funded transit system in all of Canada. There are several failures that cause transit to cost a lot here. One of them is insurmountable and that's the distance. But the other major one, one that would really fix things a lot, is that all the transit systems completely ignore each other. So you can't just buy 1 pass for it all, and that 2.5 hours is really 3.5 hours because you'll spend 1 hour standing around waiting for the next mode of transit to line up. Another item would be a family pass that covers everyone in the family.

    The reason I know all these numbers is because I'm one of the people constantly telling people in Kitchener to stop funding all the public transit, because it is TOO EXPENSIVE! I have to defend myself constantly as to how large the savings when driving to work are.

  38. Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by eepok · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work with transit agencies, city planners, major employers, and the commuters themselves. Here's what I know to be the causes:

    1. Low population density - If you go to the denser parts of LA, you get good transit. Same with SF, NYC, etc. If you head out to the land of single-family homes, population density drops to the point where you need massive subsidies to keep a route going. But then, you're fighting against...

    2. Suburban Road Network Design - When you have mile-long block-faces along arterials, you guarantee that transit riders will need to walk .5-.75 miles on average to a bus route... not even likely the route they need. Then there's the whole issue of...

    3. People Don't Live Near Work - Most people have to balance housing affordability, proximity to work, and living in a home they like. Part of that is because those who can afford to buy a home typically want a back yard, front yard, and a two car garage (see #s 1 and 2) and the other part is that given the demand to live near major work centers, the cost per square foot to live near work is pretty damn high. And then there's the issue of people buying up homes for investment (rentals) instead of living in them thereby exasperating the "drive til you qualify" problem, but that's a whole other discussion.

    4. Free parking and ignorance of the cost of commutes - People don't want to pay for public transit they're not using, so they vote down funding. That increases user fees and thus makes it unattractive to use because most people don't have separate parking fees. Instead, employers underpay their workers to fund parking costs. Moreover, people assume that "gas need to be bought" so they don't factor the cost of fuel into their commutes and thus can't accurately compare the cost of a monthly transit pass to the cost of a drive-alone commute.

    5. Transit Fare Interoperability - Transit systems are typically city-wide or county-wide. Very few cross county jurisdictional boundaries. They are thus, in effect, silo'd. They have their own fare/rate structure (cost per boarding, discounts for multi-boarding passes), pass structure (monthly passes vs. 30-day passes), and absent a multi-jurisdictional agreement (Like Clipper in the Bay Area), many people need to purchase and maintain multiple bus passes for daily commutes. State SHOULD pass laws that require that each county get onboard with multi-jurisdictional pass/pricing schemes by 202X and then set another deadline to have groups of neighboring counties merge their pass/pricing schema until we have statewide transit passes. After all, it has taken over 20 years for the SF Bay area Clipper Card to get to where it is and it still only includes 22 of the local transit agencies. There are over 164 transit agencies in California alone.

    I could go on....

    1. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care about your transpiration options, I want to drive my OWN CAR, WHEN I WANT, WHERE I WANT, and with WHOM I WANT.

      If "sustainable public transportation" was free, and if I needed to pay massive amounts of money to drive my own car, you still wouldn't get me out of my car into your cattle cars.

    2. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me give you the #1.

      Public transportation is treated like shit and people who can afford to avoid it do because of that. Its stinks, its dirty, and people on it seem to always want to cause problems for others.
      When someone else owns it, there is no reason for you to respect their property. If you own it, you take care of it.

    3. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by hey! · · Score: 2

      When someone else owns it, there is no reason for you to respect their property. If you own it, you take care of it.

      This is a quite recent attitude in America. In the late 19th Century and early 20th Century public works were a point of major civic pride. When P.G. Wodehouse satirized small town Americans, they were friendly and enthusiastic and inclined to bend your ear about the local water-works. Because in the early 20th century, when communities built, say, a pumping station, they'd build it like this. And lest you think that was an aberration, here is one across town. When they built a simple gatehouse, it ended up looking like this.

      Many people wish to return to what they conceive of as a late 19th Century version of America, in which the government didn't spend so much, but the cost off these structures must have been mind-boggling, especially in light of the much smaller population and economy of the time. It was an era of public works on a heroic scale. In Chicago in the mid 19th Century they retrofittted sewers to what was already a big city, a project that required reversing the course of the Chicago river and jacking up buildings as much as 14 feet as they were being used. Sometimes entire blocks of unreinforced masonry buildings were jacked up at once.

      There's nothing that has shaped America we are familiar with than our historical mania for public works projects: dams, highways, subways, bridges. We've always loved big shiny new things. We're crap at maintaining old stuff, though. The only reason those old pump stations are around was they were built to longevity standards appropriate for an Egyptian pyramid.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by Guybrush_T · · Score: 2

      Thanks ! Very interesting.

      I would insist on 4. In most European cities, you just don't want to drive to cities. Parking is very limited, expensive and limited in time as well, plus gas is expensive. Public transportation is fast, frequent and cheap.

      In the 70s, traffic started to become really bad and the answer to that has been to remove lanes for cars and replace them by public transportation lanes (because those are carrying more people, hence are more efficient), make city centers car free, build parking lots outside the cities, ... not widen the roads. Of course, many complained at first, but all appreciate the efficiency of the public transport now. And for inter-city transport, trains are used a lot, and to go to the train station, you better take public transportation.

      So yes, the best way to have people use public transportation and initiate a virtuous circle is simple : make it attractive, and that usually means making the car less attractive : remove free parking, remove parking space, remove lanes, replace it with public transportation infrastructure.

      Not going to happen in the US of course for all the other reasons you mention, plus a strong idea that taxes = public service = crappy service (which is, I must admit, true in the US but somehow not elsewhere in the world).

    5. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      If mass transit is so great, it should be able to compete with cost of commute without subsidies. That's how economies work - they trade money for energy spent. If you can spend energy more efficiently, you can reduce the cost of your widget and beat the competition. If you have a widget that has the potential to cost significantly less money and thus energy, then either bankers or government will help you get started.

      So make me a widget that competes with single car ownership. I can (including the cost of car ownership, depreciation, storage, fuel, taxes etc) drive my car at ~$0.45/mile. Point-to-point mass transit with busses comes in at ~$0.61 per passenger per mile. Light rail can be done slightly cheaper than cars at ~$0.36 per passenger per mile but that is only because it is very limited in where it goes, the last legs always have to go with busses or taxis.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    6. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1, 2, and 3 are really it. Mass transit works when you can walk to/from the mass transit to your destination. I lived in Japan for a couple years. Mass transit was great, but once you were at a destination you could generally walk anywhere you needed to go. You could take a train to the suburbs (Japanese suburbs) and easily walk to your cousins house. For mass transit to work, you need a pedestrian city, which means mixed zoning (so people can live where they work and/or shop) and much higher density. It works in older cities because those cities evolved as pedestrian cities. I don't see that happening in Dallas or LA.

    7. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add: There exist a widget that competes and that is single-passenger automated (electric) taxis. That would bump the cost down significantly because you no longer have to pay for or store a car and basically you pay for fuel + a little overhead. You could pay as little as $0.05/mile for transit. We could technically do it at this point (drive by wire + GPS) but it would be a massive investment to take out cars and car lanes all at once.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by Jonathan_S · · Score: 1

      5. Transit Fare Interoperability - Transit systems are typically city-wide or county-wide. Very few cross county jurisdictional boundaries. They are thus, in effect, silo'd. They have their own fare/rate structure (cost per boarding, discounts for multi-boarding passes), pass structure (monthly passes vs. 30-day passes), and absent a multi-jurisdictional agreement (Like Clipper in the Bay Area), many people need to purchase and maintain multiple bus passes for daily commutes. State SHOULD pass laws that require that each county get onboard with multi-jurisdictional pass/pricing schemes by 202X and then set another deadline to have groups of neighboring counties merge their pass/pricing schema until we have statewide transit passes. After all, it has taken over 20 years for the SF Bay area Clipper Card to get to where it is and it still only includes 22 of the local transit agencies. There are over 164 transit agencies in California alone.

      Although for a number of urban areas even state-wide transit passes wouldn't necessarily be good enough because lots of people commute across state borders. (Darn those large cities built up against the edge of the state).

      Although a number of those metro areas already have arrangements to handle some of that. Washington DC's metro system reaches out into nearby parts of both Maryland and Virginia, Philadelphia's mass transit extended across the river into New Jersey. Etc.
      The biggest outlier I'm aware of is New York. You have to switch from the MTA subway to PATH or Jersey Transit to take rail into New Jersey and those systems don't have a shared fare/rate structure with MTA.

      Still, state-wide commonality would be a very good start.

    9. Re:Sustainable Transportation Professional Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >4. Free parking and ignorance of the cost of commutes - People don't want to pay for public transit they're not using, so they vote down funding. That increases user fees and thus makes it unattractive to use because most people don't have separate parking fees. Instead, employers underpay their workers to fund parking costs. Moreover, people assume that "gas need to be bought" so they don't factor the cost of fuel into their commutes and thus can't accurately compare the cost of a monthly transit pass to the cost of a drive-alone commute.

      You are greatly overestimating the cost of free parking. Sure, if your workplace is one of the very few in the centre of downtown, it is a big deal. But most of the workplaces aren't that close. The last place I worked at was charged for parking. We could have the parking for free. The total cost to the company per space was $60 a month (As they were leasing they had to lease the parking per space by their lease agreement) and providing it to the employees was non-taxable benefit if it was free. Effectively, it cost the employee $40 a month of their net wages.

      All the locations I do know of that *are* downtown do charge for parking, because parking downtown is $20 a day.

      As for the houses that people are living in, you are right, that is part of the issue. Or, perhaps, the issue is companies that expect butts in seats for no reason in jobs that could easily be telecommute jobs. Hard to say. One thing I do appreciate is that you didn't judge people when it comes to their choice in housing.

  39. Employer support helps by PuddleBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My employer is willing to deduct the cost of a monthly transit pass (in Portland, OR) from my check *pre-tax*, so they are showing their support by offering this incentive and convenience. (The pass arrives by mail each month)

    That pass is good for; bus lines, train lines, streetcars, and the buses that run between Portland and Vancouver. It's quite convenient. (easy)

    That ease of access should never be underestimated. Even though I got the pass for commuting to work, I have used it to travel to concert venues - I then don't experience that right-after-the-concert-crush of people trying to drive out of a huge parking lot.

    Yes, using transit takes longer. There are many instances where I would not dream of using it because of the total transit time involved. But for a lot of reasonably-short-distance travel, it's great.

    If more employers installed more bike racks, offered convenience in buying transit passes, encouraged telecommuting, etc. we would all benefit in many (some subtle) ways.

  40. What about the corruption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm told the Orange Line was starved by graft.

    Giving money without accountability is giving money to thieves.

    1. Re:What about the corruption? by crow · · Score: 1

      Yes, stories of corruption in large Massachusetts transportation projects are legendary, and that's another aspect that has to be taken into account in any reform.

  41. Old news. Very old news. by Presence+Eternal · · Score: 1

    There's an old but good documentary called "Taken for a Ride" which has a few things to say about the topic. Namely that the plot of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is more true than you'd expect from as story involving coerced human on cartoon pattycake.

    1. Re:Old news. Very old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The story of the Red Line in LA is complicated - it was going under - but you are correct. Rodger Rabbit is, like Chinatown, partially a documentary.

  42. No real conspiracy here by Solandri · · Score: 1
    The U.S. is blessed with a lot more land area (per capita) than most European and Asian countries. As a result, even its cities tend to be low density and sprawling. Public transportation works best in extremely dense urban areas. Lower density means:
    • The variability in number of people riding a particular bus/train becomes higher. This is a simple consequence of statistics. The more people on average there are waiting to get on at each bus stop, the less variability there is in the number of people who'll use that bus each day. And the easier it is to plan how many buses you should put on that route / less likely it is for the bus to waste fuel traveling with few or no people.
    • Greater travel distance. This presents a conundrum - either increase the distance between stops, or increase the number of stops. If you increase the distance between stops, people end up having to talk longer distances to get to/from the nearest stop, making them more likely to want to drive a car or take Uber. If you increase the number of stops, then it takes longer to get from place to place via public transportation, and people are more likely to want to drive a car or take Uber.
    • More roads so there's less traffic and it's easier to route around traffic jams. That makes driving a car even more appealing. When I lived in Boston, during rush hour it would take me as long to drive to/from work through traffic as it would take me to walk. So I ended up biking to work.
    • More space to park your car / parking costs less or is free. Except for a few beaches, parking is free in the suburb where I live now. When I lived in Boston, some annual parking spaces cost as much as a small apartment. This lower cost makes paying for public transport less appealing.

    This is also why public transportation is still prevalent and highly utilized in the denser urban city centers in the U.S., but mostly absent in the less dense surroundings and suburbs. Even when it's present in those areas, you're usually looking at 30-45 minute wait times for the next bus. Increasing funding for public transport doesn't solve any of these issues (unless you're willing to accept increased waste - more buses and subway cars traveling empty).

    1. Re:No real conspiracy here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely.

      Most people prefer detached houses and cars over apartments and mass transit. It's not a conspiracy. No one told us we wanted those things.

      We want to pick up groceries for the family, visit relatives out of town, throw parties, play musical instruments without bothering neighbours.

      That's why we work hard to afford detached houses and cars.

    2. Re:No real conspiracy here by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      This is also why public transportation is still prevalent and highly utilized in the denser urban city centers in the U.S., but mostly absent in the less dense surroundings and suburbs. Even when it's present in those areas, you're usually looking at 30-45 minute wait times for the next bus. Increasing funding for public transport doesn't solve any of these issues (unless you're willing to accept increased waste - more buses and subway cars traveling empty).

      Of course. But they keep building them because building mass transit systems is a way of extracting subsidies from the federal government. San Jose Light rail is a prime example, trains to nowhere with virtually no riders on most of the routes. No one cares much about the operational cost or whether it works or not - the vast majority of the money that local governments can scam out of the taxpayer have already been gotten once it's built, so anything after that it just gravy.

      California's supertrain, same thing, it's not there to solve a transportation problem, it's there to get money for a make-work project, and it's irrelevant whether it is going to ever function as a viable transport system. As of a year ago, the allegedly 25-ish or so billion dollar system sold to the taxpayers was up around 98 billion as of about a year ago (if you read the fine print, which was below a much more optimistic estimate in large letters at the top) and if ever completed, will be about 250-300 billion.

            The goal is not to build a train line, it's to *spend money building a train line". The way thing are lining up, it's going to be a 50-year long version of the WPA, unions, politicians, hangers-on, all get their beaks wet, and the rest of the taxpayers get screwed.

            Of course, all the leftists love these pointless train projects, because they check all the boxes - collectivist (no more individual travel, everybody follow a schedule set by the authorities), they permit payoffs to all the constituent groups like unions (which all then kick it back through campaign donations, effectively a money-laundering scheme like Solyndra), a promise of future endless taxpayer bailouts, and the need to form conspiracies to explain why they all, ultimately, fail (Koch Brother, GM, other evil mysterious forces).

    3. Re:No real conspiracy here by CWCheese · · Score: 1

      The goal is not to build a train line, it's to *spend money building a train line". The way thing are lining up, it's going to be a 50-year long version of the WPA, unions, politicians, hangers-on, all get their beaks wet, and the rest of the taxpayers get screwed.

      Spot. On. There was a report in LA Times a few weeks ago that told of how the high speed rail commission was trying their hardest to increase the spending rate from 1m to 10m dollars per day. Otherwise they might not be eligible for follow on federal subsidies. What kind of budgeting and project planning is that? To measure progress by how many millions of dollars are spent each day so as to burn up the entire hundred billion on time, yikes!

      --
      Have a Day!
  43. SkyTran would be pretty cheap... by msc.buff · · Score: 1
    compared to all the alternatives. Also, self driving cars don't really solve our transportation problems. Your still stuck with too many cars on too few roads...roads which are in poor condition along with their bridges.

    Cars are not very efficient when considering the personal transportation equation. Do you really want to 'ship' 1000s of pounds of plastic/steel/rubber everywhere your 200 pounds of flesh wants to go?

    Imagine if CA canceled their stupid bullet train project and dumped a fraction of the money into a SkyTran system for LA/SD/SF. The potential is huge but it needs a billionaire champion or something to get it going...:)

  44. Re: Americans don't really care about their countr by nickovs · · Score: 2

    Those in prison are **not committing any crime** outside it.

    No, but by being imprisoned they are both (a) loosing much of their ability to make a living through non-criminal means when they get out (because people generally don't hire ex-cons) and (b) getting the connections and skills that set them up for committing more crime when they get out. That's why most of the data indicates that, when all other things are equal, people who are given custodial sentences are more likely to re-offend than people given non-custodial sentences. That in turn is why America having one of the largest prison populations in the world is a cause of, as well as a symptom of, America's relatively high crime rate.

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
  45. Questions by kqc7011 · · Score: 1

    What is the mean cost per rider mile across all the systems? What is the mean price paid by the rider per rider mile across all the systems? And, of all the mass transit systems in the U.S., how many would break even without subsidies?

    --
    Passionately Indifferent
    1. Re:Questions by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What is the mean cost per rider mile across all the systems? What is the mean price paid by the rider per rider mile across all the systems? And, of all the mass transit systems in the U.S., how many would break even without subsidies?

      Try the public transportation fact book, it may help.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  46. You aren't telling the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was a teenager in NYC in 1975 commuting from the city into Brooklyn for school and the MTA was preposterously awful. For you to make that statement makes me think that you are fudging your personal history.

    Still here. Trains have gotten worse recently especially after the flood. But 70s level MTA service? You're lying.

  47. No mention of General Motors streetcar conspiracy? by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

    The US used to have the best mass transit in the world.

    Then cam the streetcar conspiracy:

    >>
    Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California through a subsidiary, Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks—gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities.

    The companies were sued for their conspiracy, but mass transit never recovered.

  48. Re:No mention of General Motors streetcar conspira by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Oops. Forget the link.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

  49. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by tepples · · Score: 1

    in North America we don't require 100+ verifiable hours of supervised driving.

    You are correct. The State of Indiana in the United States required 50 hours last I checked. But at least a couple states in Australia require 120.

    Insurance for $850 a year

    Or a lot more, I've read, for an unmarried male who enters the workforce before age 25. And is that minimum coverage or full collision coverage, as some banks require until the loan is paid off?

    Total: $794 a month

    Somehow your city's transit is overpriced. How does Citilink in Fort Wayne, Indiana, get away with offering a $45 per month pass? The only things I can think of are that Citilink does not operate at night or on Sundays or six major holidays.

  50. Will personal electric transports change anything? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Probably not. But I find it interesting.

    Motorized folding bicycles, and skateboards, and what have you, could conceivably help public transportation because they help solve the last two miles problem.

    The transports are getting better, and cheaper, all the time. Fun to watch them on youtube.

  51. Bad? You should see the Swedish system... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cost more than going by car (and that is with gas costing eight bucks a gallon) and does not run in winter... The US mass transit works GREAT by comparison. Not as good as in the Japan though.

  52. Re:We allowed it to be private, then let it collap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Street cars took up the same intersections as cars and created more congestion while taking up dedicated but poorly used space. They're less efficient the buses.

  53. Where I live bus stops aren't even marked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I live in NJ the bus stops aren't even marked, they rarely come on any sort of regular schedule and you just have to hope they show up. Fees are based on how far you are going, seem much more expensive than gas money, and only take cash or some ridiculously priced bus pass.

    Besides that it takes from 1/2 to a full hour at least to get anywhere by car and everything is spread out so you're pretty much forced to get a license.

  54. The only profit is money. by Revek · · Score: 1

    Every kind of profit in this country is about money. Since that is the only way the powers that be see profit we don't get to have decent public works. Its not just the powers that be though. Those that operate the public transit only do it for money and many care little about who get where. Those that do often don't get the support they need to make it happen. They don't plan for the future except in terms of cost and will not spend money to prevent things from breaking down. They only put a band aid on what they have to.

  55. Conflicting Trends by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    Mass transit requires people to hang out together.

    Societal trends are for people to avoid each other, unless it is on-line.

    These trends are incompatible - mass transit is doomed to continued failure, so long as transportation that does NOT require strangers to co-mingle is an option.

  56. "per capita" by vanyel · · Score: 1

    Annual per capita transit trips in the U.S. plummeted from 115.8 in 1950 to 36.1 in 1970, where they have roughly remained since, even as population has grown.

    per capita is inherently independent of the population, so one wouldn't expect it to change with the population.

  57. Its a simple story by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

    Spending money on something brown people use? BIG nono for suburban voters.

  58. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Nothing is close together.
    2. Automobiles mean freedom
    3. No one wants to be exposed to all those respiratory ailments, in any case.

  59. Long, so read it ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... on the commute.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  60. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    You are correct. The State of Indiana in the United States required 50 hours last I checked. But at least a couple states in Australia require 120.

    Interesting, I've never heard of this in the US.

    I've never lived in a state that required ANY hours of supervised training.

    At 16ys, you can take your driving test (written and practical which is usually drive out and back and park in an empty parking lot)....and if you pass, you have a license, there is no proof of anything you have to show.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  61. Wumpus is one of the dumbest faggots on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wumpus is one of the dumbest faggots on /.

  62. REAL simple answer by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    It's run by governments, be they local, state or federal. Amtrak is a mess, bus lines in cities are a joke.

  63. 2017, California, 1 gallon by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    As a percentage of the pump price:

    42%: oil
    27%: transportation, refining, retailing and profit
    13% state excise tax
    6%: federal tax
    4%: cap and trade tax
    4%: other state and local tax
    3% cleaner-burning fuel (what the hell does that mean?)
    1%: low carbon fuel source (what the hell does that mean)

    That's at least 27% tax. Might be 31% tax, depending on what "cleaning-burning fuel" and "low carbon fuel source" mean.

    https://www.mercurynews.com/20...

  64. commute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Classic chicken and egg... Gas is cheap, commuting (in my case 50 miles now ) doesn't take that long and this is no bus/train option. Most of US mass transit outside mega east cost cities are based on getting people "downtown" Most of the US doesn't go downtown to work we work in the suburbs.

    I have tried it in my town. 15 minute drive by car (at that time). or a 2 hour buss ride. Had to go all the way downtown then out to the suburbs.

    SO no one will use public transit because its crappy and doesn't meet the needs of the people and they will not expand because the people dont use it.

  65. Re:Americans don't really care about their country by registrations_suck · · Score: 2

    American culture is pure selfishness. It's all about "me me me" without any consideration to their community, municipality, country, state, or even country.

    Because SANE people realize that they don't exist to serve the State, the State exists to serve them.

  66. Not just mass transit by AnthonywC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But almost all public infrastructure in USA are in very bad shape. USA got a D+ rating in 2017 from (ASCE) American Society of Civil Engineers https://www.infrastructurerepo...

    1. Re:Not just mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there was nothing self-serving about that rating. They wouldn't give infrastructure a D+ rating, just so people would throw some money in the direction of the members of that organization!

    2. Re:Not just mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People generally like civilization - they just don't want to pay for it...

    3. Re:Not just mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who get paid to rebuild stuff claim rebuilding stuff is desperately needed.

  67. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by tepples · · Score: 1

    From Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles:

    Indiana law requires persons with a learner’s permit to complete at least 50 hours of supervised driving practice with a licensed instructor or:

    A licensed driver, with valid driving privileges, who is at least 25 years of age and [if the individual is under 18] related by blood, marriage, or legal status

    This can become a lot more difficult (read: expensive) if your parents don't drive, if your parents don't live in the same state, or if you are a member of a set of twins, triplets, or more (NSW, Australia):

    Each of her 16-year-old quintuplets needs 120 hours behind the wheel to qualify for P-plates

  68. MOD PARENT UP by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    Exactly, but don't expect much support on /.

  69. Not true for Boston by pz · · Score: 2

    The article mentions the Boston subway system frequently, but does not mention that ridership is way, way up since the Great Recession (almost 25% on the heavy rail portion of the subway, source: MBTA "Ridership Trends Final 022717", also see http://www.t4ma.org/boston_is_...). While there are plenty of reasons to dislike the subway system in Boston (including rampant corruption, gross ineptitude, poor management, inadequate maintenance, etc.), it is working at capacity during rush hour, and there are well-publicised plans to expand capacity. It's not clear how much more room there is for expansion, however, as, for example, the Red Line trains run every 3 minutes during rush hour, and need to maintain a minimum separation.

    But declining ridership? Not in Boston.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Not true for Boston by Shados · · Score: 1

      the Red Line trains run every 3 minutes during rush hour

      Might be supposed to, but certainly don't, not even if you're at the end stations.

    2. Re:Not true for Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas, outside the city, any number of suburbs have shut down their T stations because they didn't like the commuter criminal traffic coming out to rob their houses while they were at work in the city. (Westboro resident.)

  70. old cities: old problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cars are bad in other ways.

    https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/07/how-cars-divide-america/565148/

  71. The JEWNited States/JEW.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

    Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

    This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

    Jew Talmud excerpts (the book that calls Christ's mother a whore & a bastard of a roman soldier):

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen H

  72. Re:No mention of General Motors streetcar conspira by Koreantoast · · Score: 1
    The article directly addresses the "great streetcar conspiracy" and notes that there were broader changes that doomed the streetcar. National City Lines may have been a part of it, but they got involved long after the trend was firmly established.

    In the popular history of postwar urban development, blame for the decline of the streetcars and interurbans is often placed at the feet of National City Lines, the company owned by General Motors, Firestone, and others in the auto industry that bought out many local streetcar companies to convert their operations to rubber-tired, GM-made buses. But the main issue was not the technology change—it was the decline in transit service, which happened everywhere, whether or not NCL bought the local company.

    A few other good articles:

    This accusation [GM killed the streetcar], however, ignores fundamental problems that the streetcar system in Los Angeles had been facing for years. The dirty secret about the streetcar lines: they were wildly unprofitable and were quickly losing riders. In Transport of Delight, Jonathan Richmond points out that the Pacific Electric line managed to turn a profit in only two years between 1923 and the end of World War II. Meanwhile, between 1945 and 1951, the number of riders carried each year fell by nearly 80 million.

    Cheaper to operate and requiring less maintenance, buses began phasing out the streetcars very early. In 1926, 15 percent of the total miles traveled by Pacific Electric riders was along bus routes; that number would more than double by 1939.

    By the time that National City Lines entered the picture, the dismantling of the streetcar system was well underway. As The Guardian puts it, "one can confidently accuse General Motors and their National City Lines of nothing worse than scheming to profit from a trend already in motion."

  73. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Quintuplets? Who gives a shit? The cost we care about is per person.
    Further, why not negotiate a bulk rate with a driving school at that point? 5 for the price of 4? Maybe 3?

    Or maybe just lie about the hours like everyone does. Or get one of them a license and let them share. Oh, they're not identical quintuplets? Too fucking bad.

  74. Re:No mention of General Motors streetcar conspira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops. Forget the link.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

    Guess you missed the part where they say it's likely just a conspiracy theory.

  75. it's a very simple story by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Operations -- the actual running of buses and trains frequently enough to appeal to people with an alternative -- are perpetually starved for cash.

    And that's the answer: transit systems are not economically self-sufficient; they require massive government subsidies to stay afloat. In the US, there is less appetite to levy the taxes required to support transit systems. In Europe, people are taxes accordingly. And "people" is "the middle class", not "the wealthy"; middle class income taxes in Europe are generally roughly 50% higher than in the US, and in addition to that, there is a high VAT.

    So, if you want European-style transit systems and other government benefits, it's simple: raise taxes on the average American family from 25% to 35%.

  76. Physics of street cars by del_diablo · · Score: 2

    ?
    Things that move on tracks, accelerate and stop with far better behavior. A electric street car basically move like a high end electric car, where it can change speed in really elegant and powerful ways. The same with elegant stops. And a greater loading space versus how much padding the exterior adds.

    These are on top of things like priority in right of way. Or being simpler mechanism means cheaper unit cost.
    Basically: This isn't about cars per intersection anon, but people per intersection instead. Where working public transport means people can use bikes/trams/street cars or trains to go somewhere, and they will because its actually possible. So instead of 200 cars per minute it could be 3 buses, which means there is more space for everything else.

  77. It's obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Policy makers like mass transit. Commuters don't.

  78. Re:Americans don't really care about their country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No - the state exists to MANAGE everyone, for everyone's overall benefit. But few people, it seems, in the US like being managed, so civilization itself is under threat, because the only people they want to manage the state are just as selfish as they are. This is how civilization dies - when too few people care to keep it, (at which point, in history, it would usually get invaded, but the fall of the US will take longer without that happening).

    So few people understand civilization today, and so have no understanding of what it is they have to lose - until it's to damn late to do anything about it...

    Civilization is inherently socialist and collective - such things rural America hates...

  79. Because we have cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And like to go where we please when we please. Nothing better than the freedom of the open road.

  80. Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    auto lobby

    say it with me; AUTO LOBBY

    The AUTO LOBBY killed mass transit where I live; meanwhile, they take non of the responsibility for destroying the roads, etc.

    Fuck cars, fuck every last one of them.

  81. City budgets by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Put some city money back into supporting and improving transport.
    Make US transport networks great again.
    Clean up cities. No more crime.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  82. GAUGE - among other things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not forget the brilliant san francisco council people
    who voted for a NON_Standard gauge track width.
    who go Paid for that pain-in-the-neck into the next
    100 years...

  83. Short Story: We Need Smaller Cars by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    Smaller, more efficient cars make more sense for America.

    No one was born with a 4800 pound SUV strapped to their ass.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
  84. No money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very simply, there is no more money. When you realize how much of the federal government's expenses are for social costs (Medicare, Social security, welfare, etc)--it consumes almost 2/3 of the budget. Discretionary funding has been cut to the bone. And we're still running a $ 1 trillion dollar deficit.

  85. it's actually a very short story.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    population density.

    very few cities in the u.s. have the population density (i.e. comparable to cities in europe or asia) to support a self-sustaining or self-funded mass transit system. everywhere else, it has to be supported by tax dollars because it simply costs that much more to cover a wider area that has fewer riders in it.

  86. Because the US is very, very, VERY big. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bigger than you can probably possibly imagine.

  87. Simple fix. by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    Mass transit needs to reliably take me from where I am to where I want to go, when I want to go there, and it needs to do so without taking grossly longer than it would take me to drive there.

    I've taken mass transit to work a few times when I had a 50-mile commute. One hour driving, or about 3 hours driving to the train station + train + walking to the office. Four... dang... hours... out of my life, every work day that I used it.

    Now, I work 12 miles from home. Driving time, about 35 minutes according to Google Maps.

    Oh, let me click "Transit". Two... Hours...

    Not happening.

  88. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by guruevi · · Score: 1

    In many of those cases all that money for licensing and road taxes to get a car is sent straight to the public transportation enterprises which are largely failing or underfunded.

    In the US you can get a drivers license, a car and enough gas to drive cross country under the $2000 yearly tax you are levied just to own said car.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  89. Zoning and pedestrian cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mass transit works when it occurs in what is otherwise a pedestrian city. If you can't walk from mass transit to your destination, it has zero value. Most of the US does not have a lot of heavily mixed zoning, in particular we keep our residential, industrial and commercial districts fairly segregated, which means that even if there is mass transit to get from residential to industrial, you usually need a car once you get there. The cities where mass transit works really well (I lived in Japan for two years) evolved as pedestrian cities, not for 100 years like some old US cities in the 1910s, but for hundreds or even thousands of years.

  90. We have far cheaper gasoline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American mass transit isn't "bad," it's just less common than in countries were gasoline prices are far higher.
    Gasoline prices are far higher in most other countries because of sky-high taxes on it.
    Americans don't want super-high gas taxes. We WANT to have much lower gas taxes so we can afford to ride in our private cars rather than buses, subways, and trains.
    ***THAT'S HOW WE LIKE IT***

  91. Counter Point by skam240 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I travel in Europe I never use a car. It's really rather liberating and I can stay longer because I'm spending less money. (Admitted minor point)

    After that, I spent a good while being lower income when I was younger. Oh lord would it have been nice to live in a country where public transportation was widely available and I didn't have to spend such a significant portion of my income on a car and all of it's associated bills. When I go shopping or out to eat literally anywhere the vast majority of those people operating those stores are in the exact same boat as I was back then. The extra money saved by these masses would likely be spent elsewhere contributing far more to job growth then buying and maintaining a car whose construction is largely automated.

    And then after that, I remember when I had to commute by car at a slightly older age. What a garbage fest it is commuting by car. I'd have a traded a slightly longer commute by mass transit where I could read, work, or just plane space out the entire time over stop and go traffic where I'm just stuck sitting there having to focus on the road.

    And then after that, in all my travels in the US, our highways are never wide enough during high traffic periods and likely never will be under our current transportation model.

    In summary, a car is a major expense for most Americans. Sure the convenience of car ownership is nice and I currently thoroughly enjoy it but for many Americans it's an absolute burden.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  92. Re:Americans don't really care about their country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is your definition of civilization, I say let it die. We'd all be much better off without your version of civilization.

  93. Re:We allowed it to be private, then let it collap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid right. Government always fails, always costs more, always disrupts the populous. That's why they can only fool some of the people some of the time.

  94. Re:We allowed it to be private, then let it collap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Australian cities also had tram networks until the 50s and 60s, and they also pulled them. This was done by the local governments, not by corporate bodies. It was done because, at the time, cars were seen as more attractive, and it was thought that buses could replace trams.

    As it turns out, cars are the least space efficient method of transport we've created, and buses are a terrible substitute for trams. As the cost of car ownership as a proportion of household income has plummeted, ownership has gone up, and so the space inefficiency is now a huge problem. Australia cities also used the American model of zoning which entrenches the need for car ownership. It's an okay way of designing cities when you have a smallish population and low car-ownership rates, its awful otherwise.

  95. Maintenance and Democrats don't mix by mveloso · · Score: 1

    In general, Democrats would rather spend money on social services than maintenance, and most large urban areas in the US are run by Democrats. Eventually the infrastructure crumbles away, and you're fucked.

    That's pretty much been the trend in all Democratically controlled cities.

  96. Cost overruns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have we had a single large scale public works project that has came in on time and on budget in recent history? Californian HSR is quickly closing in on $100 Billion and even if it was built in its entirety it wouldn't recoup its costs for over a century. Bostons Big Dig was massively scaled back and even with that it ran almost 3 times its original budget and parts of it are already falling apart. The Orville Dam spillway repair is closing in on double the original estimate and is about 10 times the cost of the original spillway (inflation adjusted). And they haven't even touched the damaged dams gate structures which will likely cost another Billion. Unfortunately this kind of reckless spending isn't limited to large projects, near my home they spent nearly a half million dollars putting in a small bridge when a ~$30k box culvert would have done. We need infrastructure projects to bring our roads/bridges/transportation back up to grade, but at the same time those projects need to spend their finite budgets far more wisely.

  97. you chose to live far from public transport by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you chose to live far from pubic transportation, the public transportation did not choose to be far away from you

  98. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Somehow your city's transit is overpriced.

    I don't doubt it. Public transportation projects are notorious for corruption in North America. I know it is hard to believe those prices and the funding, but here are the links:

    http://www.grt.ca/en/fares-passes/fares.aspx
    https://www.ttc.ca/Fares_and_passes/Prices/Prices.jsp
    For go you have to enter the trip into their calculator and tell it you'll be making 44 trips (1 each way every day, and yes, that's how it works, I know people using that train, I think they're nuts, obviously):
    https://www.gotransit.com/

    And the funding:
    https://www.570news.com/2017/03/31/752-6-million-announced-kitchener-go-line-brings-day-go-train-service-closer/
    http://rapidtransit.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/projectinformation/frequentlyaskedquestions.asp#g

    I seriously chose the cheapest options--the ones that anyone here would use if they were commuting.

    As for citilink, it's that cheap because for every dollar someone pays for a fare, the government takes $5 from tax funds (page 8):

    http://www.govwiki.info/pdfs/Special%20District/IN%20Fort%20Wayne%20Public%20Transportation%20Corporation%20D_B_A%20Citilink%202016.pdf

    As for unmarried male at 25 driving, yes, insurance is quite high. Ontario has the highest insurance prices in North America. When I was insured at age 25 in the early 2000s my insurance was $3000 a year for perfect driving. I would assume it's $5000 a year now. I solved that problem by taking public transit at the time because despite the high cost, it was cheaper. Also, at that age you don't need to commute so far for a job, you can find entry level positions closer saving you a lot of money on the commute cost (just need a single bus pass instead of pays for 3 different transit modes). Get the license, though, because what insurance companies actually care about is how long you've possessed a license, and you're racking up time against it while you're not driving if you passed the tests.

    As for 50 hours of supervised driving, in Indiana it appears to have zero cost if you know anyone with a license over 25. Having spent a little time in Indiana, I know it's a rarity to find someone without a license there, so that is not a tall bar to leap over. Well, I guess you could have a total jerk for a friend who charges you for you to drive him places.

  99. Re:Americans don't really care about their country by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Correct. And I want the State to serve me and my community by providing reliable public transport at an affordable cost. Which, here in Sweden, it does.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  100. Conspiracy To Destroy Doesn't Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

    Ever heard of the animated documentary, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"?

    The scars of the Red Line are still in Los Angeles, and instead, they built a hole, for 1B$ a mile:

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hollywood,+Los+Angeles,+CA/@34.0981222,-118.3515573,1197m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c2bf07045279bf:0xf67a9a6797bdfae4!8m2!3d34.0928092!4d-118.3286614

  101. Never owned a car. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: German citizen here.

    I live in NRW and have never owned a car. I think it's safe to say that in urbanised and semi-urban/suburb areas in Germany it's nigh pointless to own one these days. Germans love their cars, but standing at an intersection at 7:30 on a regular morning will show you that this private owned ICE car thing is little more than some German mass psychosis or something.
    20 years ago people would call me crazy for not having a driver's license - it's somewhat of a regular rite of growing up in Germany - but that has changed in the last 15 years. Today's generations are pretty much where I was 25 years ago: many really don't get the point of owning a car.

    As for PT it's basically what you would expect smack center in Europe on German soil: I can fall out of bed and land at a bus-stop. The tram is 10 minutes away and I can travel the entire state on my PT subscription. For me that comes for free, as I'm a college student and a state wide PT ticket is included in being that.

    With the ever increasing mega-sprawls PT will be the way to ride for most people in the future, no doubt about it. Regular motorised traffic is at the beginning of collapse in Germany, and I expect it to get worse.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  102. Don't school buses count? by AntisocialNetworker · · Score: 1

    Last time I was in the US, about 15 years ago, there were lots of yellow buses carrying school kids. Assuming they're still there, don't they count as Mass Transit?

  103. Re:No mention of General Motors streetcar conspira by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    > Guess you missed the part where they say it's likely just a conspiracy theory.

    Guess you missed the part where the companies involved in the conspiracy were successfully sued. The courts found it was more than a conspiracy "theory"

  104. Re: It's simple. by walllaby · · Score: 1

    I have better things to do with my life during the week than stopping to shop multiple times during the week after a full day of work. It is much more convenient to spend 1-2 hours tops on weekend to go and shop and buy all I need for the week and weekend....I also like to buy in bulk at Costco and Sam's....and it would be a PITA to carry that stuff on a bus and to/from the bus stop.

    This is where cultural differences lie. Most definitely in part caused by the different development of our transit systems.

    I lived in a Rome for a semester and it took a little while to get used to the idea of using transit everywhere and grabbing groceries on the way home, rather than stocking up once. It’s simply a different way of life. I didn’t find it offensive; on the contrary! It was quite refreshing.

    There, you had three different small grocery stores within walking distance of your building. Food was much fresher, and tasted better in home cooking. You were exposed to more people as a result of needing to interact more often with your environment.

    America has a much more independent culture. Here, it’s possible to live alone in a house you bought, walk through the yard you maintain to your car that you bought and drive by yourself, arrive at the office after listening to your own curated Spotify playlist, sit at your desk, put some headphones on, and code away for the rest of the day, even eschewing personal meetings in lieu of Slack. Then, at the end of the day, you do it all over again. Maybe you stop at the grocery store along the way home, plug in some headphones so you can listen to a podcast instead of the overhead music, use the self-checkout, and head home to play a single player video game.

    Whether this way of life is any better or worse than the one I described in Rome is dependent upon your values. Objectively, the American way of life is more taxing on natural resources; resource usage is delineated among individuals rather than shared. I’d argue that the insulation of individuals also contributes to our current political and economic climate, where it’s easy to ignore those you disagree with, or go without seeing the plights of the less fortunate.

    After having spent time in a Europe, my value system places the European model above the American one. I couldn’t believe the waste I witnessed upon returning. The idea of 3+ empty seats in all the cars I saw coming down the road wasn’t just wasteful, it was downright selfish.

    It’s not easy to suggest this due to the cost, but I think if you have the means, it’s worthwhile to spend a couple weeks vacation in one of these places to see the difference. Exposure to other ideas is how we grow as people, and might help you decide if your values are really where you want them.

    (CW)MW out.

  105. why? because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US mass transit is so bad because no one wants to ride it. Why? Because the US is full of criminals, narcissists, sociopaths, egotists, and highly inconsiderate people who make riding mass transit hell. The US is not a nice small mono-cultural place like Denmark or Norway. It has way more people, way more incompatible cultures, and way larger distances that people need to go.

  106. Quite high usage by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Annual per capita transit trips in the U.S. plummeted from 115.8 in 1950 to 36.1 in 1970, where they have roughly remained since, even as population has grown.

    So, on average three trips per American per month. That's actually quite high. Higher than I'd have expected.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  107. Trolley Mythology. by westlake · · Score: 1

    GM paid to have trolley car tracks ripped out.

    The truth is that most trolley lines were in deep financial trouble before World War I.

    The economics were roughly this. The Model T Ford cost about 5 cents a mile. 24/7/365 unscheduled point-to-the-point transportation for a family of four plus dog and cargo. 40 MPH on paved roads, but serviceable on the most ragged and rugged of dirt tracks. Light truck, bus and other conversions available almost from the start.

    1. Re:Trolley Mythology. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Look to places like Indianapolis, that had a thriving trolley system that was systematically destroyed BY GM. Feel free to look it up.

      The mythos surrounding public funding problems for mass transportation are many. Yet every major city in North America thrives on mass transit, even those built in the "auto era". My favorite examples are Toronto and Chicago, but there are many more. Equally cities with enormous problems can often be identified through decaying urban areas, and enormous white flight to their suburbs (St Louis).

      There's lots of history to correlate through the urban evolution. Autos were often an enabler, easily financed, and changed the US & Canada to the sprawl that cripples it today.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  108. Mismanaged by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    One thing I keep hearing is how mismanaged and abused they are. Crap like a DC metrobus stopping at a convenience store for the driver to stop and pick up beer, other stuff. I knew a woman that her job was to bust those guys. Then hear the officials talking (about metro rail) and they'll say we have 30 million in repairs to make and only 5 million in the budget. Some of the items needing replacement are 40+ years old. Electrical components that aren't meant to still be in service. Yet we find out about how they blow all kinds of money on stuff they didn't need (and I'm sure someone got a hell of a kick-back for).

    Seems like a lot of corruption.

  109. Charlie in the MTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About all I from the summary was that public mass transit is going to die any year now.

    If it does die, does that mean that Charlie might be able to finally come home?

  110. Highway lobby by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Commuter highways get built, which encourages sprawl, which clogs commuter highways, which results in more commuter highways construction, which encourages sprawl. Repeat, A bit of an oversimplification, but that's the gist.

    Road- and bridge-construction companies like getting paid to build highways and overpasses. And they like getting paid later to widen them and to add new ones Owners of farmland outside suburbia like it when highways and bridges make their land more desirable to developers, and so suburbia expands. And so on.

    So farmers and others owning land not (yet) suburbanized are given subtle property value increases by construction financed by the general taxpayer. Construction firms get government contracts. Subdivision developers get an expanded supply of suitable land. Existing suburbs decline, and the people in them are taxed to pay for commuter road construction.

    All because commuter highways are "free".

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  111. It's not though. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    American cities had good transit systems at one point. The auto industry basically went city to city and destroyed it. If you didn't know this, ask yourself why. Hint: corporate media.

  112. Re:The JEWNited States/JEW.S.A. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice how APK won't come forward and deny that this is him...?

  113. Re:Americans don't really care about their country by registrations_suck · · Score: 1

    Which is all fine, until you demand that those who do NOT want it participate in paying for it.

  114. Canada by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    It is also horrible in Canada.

    Without getting into it, I'll just share one story, that sort of made me pretty embarrassed as a Canadian.

    Years ago I went on a trip to Europe, though mostly Italy and Greece. As such I was in Rome and Athens a fair bit, used the public transit, and most importantly (at least in terms of this story) arrived in Rome and left from Athens. The bottom line, is without too much hassle with very little money, I could take their rail system to their respective international airports. This was novel to me because at the time (and for years after), Canada's largest international (Pearson Airport in Toronto), had no such thing. Once in TO, your options are a bus, cab, or car to get to the airport. The buses take forever, the cabs ridiculously expensive, and cars were also expensive to park, but that was all the options you had.

    Fast forward many years later, they finally built a rail service from the TO airport to the rest of the rail system in TO. However upon completion, they decided to price it out of existence making it only slightly less expensive than taking a cab. A couple years later, I believe they have lowered the price somewhat, however it is still a far cry from jumping on the subway someplace urban, and stepping off at the airport for what amounted to peanuts.

    Also Union Station in TO (main hub) is a POS confusing mess. I had an easier time finding my way around Rome and Athens, and not only do I not speak the language, but when I actually left Athens, my closest station was closed because they decided to have that 1st huge protest about the Euro and Debt in front of their legislative building (which pretty much says exactly when and where I left Athens...watched it all unravel on the rooftop patio of my hotel).

  115. Why? It's a short (bus) story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No to make fun of the learning disabled, but buses are why mass transit sucks. See the detroit conspiracy, where automakers deliberately bought up tram lines and interurban railways and closed them down to make a ready market for their buses.

    This is why we can't have nice things.

  116. Re:Public transportation rigid and expensive by tepples · · Score: 1

    As for 50 hours of supervised driving, in Indiana it appears to have zero cost if you know anyone with a license over 25. Having spent a little time in Indiana, I know it's a rarity to find someone without a license there, so that is not a tall bar to leap over. Well, I guess you could have a total jerk for a friend who charges you for you to drive him places.

    Then the question becomes how to find local friends in the first place, as online friends are not useful for this purpose. What are the most effective ways for someone with a diagnosed social interaction disorder (Asperger's/HFA) who does not or cannot drink alcohol to do so?

  117. Low carbon and cleaner-burning defined by tepples · · Score: 1

    "Low carbon fuel source" appears to be a CO2 cap-and-trade program specific to motor vehicle fuel (source: Wikipedia). "Cleaner-burning fuel" comprises refining methods and additives to reduce sulfur, alkenes, benzene and other aromatic hydrocarbons, and other exhaust components that contribute to smog.