7 ms·

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but hear me out: the issue of social and physical comfort in public transit is probably at least as important as the issue of effi

Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but hear me out: the issue of social and physical comfort in public transit is probably at least as important as the issue of efficiency. In public transit, the expectation of adhering to a social contract is almost non-existent. Women deal with creepy gropers, everyone deals with the smell of urine, and of course there's the ubiquitous annoyance of music played over phone speakers (or worse, bluetooth). If you want people to prefer to take transit, and you should want that, you need to deal with the lack of a social contract on public transit. That means, in other words, that behavior not tolerated in a private business (such as a bar or restaurant) can't be tolerated on public transit either. For urban liberals, that means confronting some uncomfortable choices. A public space (and transit is public) is supposed to be open to all, but if we want public spaces to be livable, that probably means smells and behaviors are more tightly regulated in public, either through direct enforcement by transit police (unlikely) or more social pressure (also unlikely).

ryan_lane 5y ago
The public transit in the US smells like piss for the same reasons you see human feces on the street: there's no accessible public restrooms. We don't need stricter enforcement on public urination, we need to provide restrooms so people don't need to do so.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
>In public transit, the expectation of adhering to a social contract is almost non-existent. That's not the case in the UK or the rest of Europe. Of course there are occasional nut jobs out there but the fact that so many people use public transport controls that sort of behaviour.
- arethuza 5y ago
  I've encountered far more "nut jobs" driving in Scotland than I have on public transport... Edit: The only awkward scene I ever witness on my occasional commute into Edinburgh by train is when two laptop users sitting across from from each other accidentally touch screens - of course, both people immediately apologise. It's hell.
  - alamortsubite 5y ago
    This point is underappreciated, and the nut jobs in cars are also more dangerous.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  It's not just that. Europe in general has at least somewhat decent mental health care, way less veterans with untreated horrible PTSD, somewhat working involuntary admission to mental institutions, and somewhat affordable housing - meaning you have a lot less homeless and mentally unstable persons forced by circumstances to survive in/on/near public transit. Not to say Europe is perfect: London, Berlin and other urban areas certainly have their issues in all of the mentioned areas. But we are miles ahead of the US.
echelon 5y ago
> Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but hear me out: the issue of social and physical comfort in public transit is probably at least as important as the issue of efficiency. In public transit, the expectation of adhering to a social contract is almost non-existent. Women deal with creepy gropers, everyone deals with the smell of urine, and of course there's the ubiquitous annoyance of music played over phone speakers (or worse, bluetooth). My incredibly liberal (left of Bernie) economics professor used to say that you need to build public transit infrastructure for the middle class, not the poor. It increases ridership amongst those paying the lion's share of taxes and causes development along high utility economic corridors, spreading outward, trickling down. It stops the service from being stigmatized and increases ridership at all levels.
alamortsubite 5y ago
The problem you describe with public transport is basically a tautology; if the only people using public transport are the ones who cannot afford automobiles, then yeah, maybe we should expect it to be a bit of a shitshow. Liberal has nothing to do with it, except that maybe liberals are able to understand this a priori.
- indymike 5y ago
  Public transit designed to get poor people to work usually operate in a state of failure (bad schedule, long trip times, bad environment). Public transit designed to be a better alternative to driving for everyone tends to be fantastic and useful - and ironically helps solve the getting people to work problem, too. Maybe focus on building a better alternative to cars?
  - alamortsubite 5y ago
    I'm not sure what point you're making unless it's to underscore the tautology. The better alternative exists. It's only the political will to implement it that's lacking.
    - indymike 5y ago
      Most mass transit systems that are actually built are the kind focused on getting poor people to work. The results are that cars remain the best option, often even for the very people the system was designed for.
      - alamortsubite 5y ago
        What are some concrete examples of these systems that are specifically "designed to get poor people to work?" At first, I thought you were confusing the relationship between a transit system's design and implementation with its budget, but it sounds like I'm wrong.
        5y ago
mschuster91 5y ago
> For urban liberals, that means confronting some uncomfortable choices. A public space (and transit is public) is supposed to be open to all, but if we want public spaces to be livable, that probably means smells and behaviors are more tightly regulated in public, either through direct enforcement by transit police (unlikely) or more social pressure (also unlikely). All you list here is repressive regulation, with all the problems that come with it - e.g. both unintended (correlation between homelessness distribution and ethnicity) and intended (discriminatory behavior by police) racism. The worst problem in public from a safety point of view are homeless and mentally unstable people, and then "wild urination" and litter. To use police against the first two is just plain inhumane even if it's the sad "standard" - the solution to these problems are affordable housing and accessible mental health care. Using repression only shifts the problem to somewhere else, it does not solve the problem. As for wild urination and litter, the issue here is that public toilets and trash bins are scarce. In Munich for example, trains used to have litter bins at every seat, buses and trams had tiny litter bins bins for tickets and small litter and a lot of subway stations had public, free-to-use toilets - both were cut due to cost-cutting, and then the problems arose.
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  > As for wild urination and litter, the issue here is that public toilets and trash bins are scarce. Yes! I don't get why more people (and elected officials) don't realize this. The city I live in (Philadelphia) has approximately zero public toilets. Many of our train stations also constantly smell of urine. These two things seem related?
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > Yes! I don't get why more people (and elected officials) don't realize this. They realize, but they don't care. Their equation is: Why put in public taxpayer money (and thus, risk their own "political capital") for a service that's: - mostly going to be used by homeless (and a few people with medical issues like IBS) - going to be constantly vandalized (graffiti), mistreated (discarding tampons and condoms in toilets is a "classic"), abused ("glory holes", drug consumption, ...) or in questionable hygienic conditions (e.g. people flinging poo to the walls and ceilings), requiring a significant maintenance budget - mostly going to improve the quality of a service (public transit) that mostly poor and other down-on-their-luck people are using when the ones that vote for the politicians don't profit? Not to mention that many small city/town budgets are already severely under strain. Middle-class and rich people and companies don't need public transport, they have cars, and they don't need public toilets as they have toilets at home, at their employment place and if need be can afford to buy a snack at a restaurant to use their toilet. That perverse incentive is why it needs regulation of minimum standards for urban areas at a state or better federal level.
KptMarchewa 5y ago
Stinking homeless are thrown away from public transport vehicles here in Poland. It's uniquely American problem that your public transport smells like piss.
- xtracto 5y ago
- AlgorithmicTime 5y ago
jeegsy 5y ago
> and you should want that Not that I'm picking on you in particular but I just want to say that this idea, is maybe the biggest obstacle to mass adoption.

ryan_lane 5y ago

The public transit in the US smells like piss for the same reasons you see human feces on the street: there's no accessible public restrooms. We don't need stricter enforcement on public urination, we need to provide restrooms so people don't need to do so.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

>In public transit, the expectation of adhering to a social contract is almost non-existent. That's not the case in the UK or the rest of Europe. Of course there are occasional nut jobs out there but the fact that so many people use public transport controls that sort of behaviour.

arethuza 5y ago
I've encountered far more "nut jobs" driving in Scotland than I have on public transport... Edit: The only awkward scene I ever witness on my occasional commute into Edinburgh by train is when two laptop users sitting across from from each other accidentally touch screens - of course, both people immediately apologise. It's hell.
- alamortsubite 5y ago
  This point is underappreciated, and the nut jobs in cars are also more dangerous.
mschuster91 5y ago
It's not just that. Europe in general has at least somewhat decent mental health care, way less veterans with untreated horrible PTSD, somewhat working involuntary admission to mental institutions, and somewhat affordable housing - meaning you have a lot less homeless and mentally unstable persons forced by circumstances to survive in/on/near public transit. Not to say Europe is perfect: London, Berlin and other urban areas certainly have their issues in all of the mentioned areas. But we are miles ahead of the US.

echelon 5y ago

> Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but hear me out: the issue of social and physical comfort in public transit is probably at least as important as the issue of efficiency. In public transit, the expectation of adhering to a social contract is almost non-existent. Women deal with creepy gropers, everyone deals with the smell of urine, and of course there's the ubiquitous annoyance of music played over phone speakers (or worse, bluetooth). My incredibly liberal (left of Bernie) economics professor used to say that you need to build public transit infrastructure for the middle class, not the poor. It increases ridership amongst those paying the lion's share of taxes and causes development along high utility economic corridors, spreading outward, trickling down. It stops the service from being stigmatized and increases ridership at all levels.

alamortsubite 5y ago

The problem you describe with public transport is basically a tautology; if the only people using public transport are the ones who cannot afford automobiles, then yeah, maybe we should expect it to be a bit of a shitshow. Liberal has nothing to do with it, except that maybe liberals are able to understand this a priori.

indymike 5y ago
Public transit designed to get poor people to work usually operate in a state of failure (bad schedule, long trip times, bad environment). Public transit designed to be a better alternative to driving for everyone tends to be fantastic and useful - and ironically helps solve the getting people to work problem, too. Maybe focus on building a better alternative to cars?
- alamortsubite 5y ago
  I'm not sure what point you're making unless it's to underscore the tautology. The better alternative exists. It's only the political will to implement it that's lacking.
  - indymike 5y ago
    Most mass transit systems that are actually built are the kind focused on getting poor people to work. The results are that cars remain the best option, often even for the very people the system was designed for.
    - alamortsubite 5y ago
      What are some concrete examples of these systems that are specifically "designed to get poor people to work?" At first, I thought you were confusing the relationship between a transit system's design and implementation with its budget, but it sounds like I'm wrong.
      - 5y ago

mschuster91 5y ago

> For urban liberals, that means confronting some uncomfortable choices. A public space (and transit is public) is supposed to be open to all, but if we want public spaces to be livable, that probably means smells and behaviors are more tightly regulated in public, either through direct enforcement by transit police (unlikely) or more social pressure (also unlikely). All you list here is repressive regulation, with all the problems that come with it - e.g. both unintended (correlation between homelessness distribution and ethnicity) and intended (discriminatory behavior by police) racism. The worst problem in public from a safety point of view are homeless and mentally unstable people, and then "wild urination" and litter. To use police against the first two is just plain inhumane even if it's the sad "standard" - the solution to these problems are affordable housing and accessible mental health care. Using repression only shifts the problem to somewhere else, it does not solve the problem. As for wild urination and litter, the issue here is that public toilets and trash bins are scarce. In Munich for example, trains used to have litter bins at every seat, buses and trams had tiny litter bins bins for tickets and small litter and a lot of subway stations had public, free-to-use toilets - both were cut due to cost-cutting, and then the problems arose.

ryukafalz 5y ago
> As for wild urination and litter, the issue here is that public toilets and trash bins are scarce. Yes! I don't get why more people (and elected officials) don't realize this. The city I live in (Philadelphia) has approximately zero public toilets. Many of our train stations also constantly smell of urine. These two things seem related?
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > Yes! I don't get why more people (and elected officials) don't realize this. They realize, but they don't care. Their equation is: Why put in public taxpayer money (and thus, risk their own "political capital") for a service that's: - mostly going to be used by homeless (and a few people with medical issues like IBS) - going to be constantly vandalized (graffiti), mistreated (discarding tampons and condoms in toilets is a "classic"), abused ("glory holes", drug consumption, ...) or in questionable hygienic conditions (e.g. people flinging poo to the walls and ceilings), requiring a significant maintenance budget - mostly going to improve the quality of a service (public transit) that mostly poor and other down-on-their-luck people are using when the ones that vote for the politicians don't profit? Not to mention that many small city/town budgets are already severely under strain. Middle-class and rich people and companies don't need public transport, they have cars, and they don't need public toilets as they have toilets at home, at their employment place and if need be can afford to buy a snack at a restaurant to use their toilet. That perverse incentive is why it needs regulation of minimum standards for urban areas at a state or better federal level.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

Stinking homeless are thrown away from public transport vehicles here in Poland. It's uniquely American problem that your public transport smells like piss.

xtracto 5y ago
AlgorithmicTime 5y ago

jeegsy 5y ago

> and you should want that Not that I'm picking on you in particular but I just want to say that this idea, is maybe the biggest obstacle to mass adoption.