8 ms·

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

50 points by jseliger 2y ago

infotainment 2y ago
I think the biggest problem is attitude; in the US, transit is largely viewed as a welfare program for poor people who are not (yet) able to afford cars. To put it in HN terms, Americans see it like a deprecated API; something you're obligated to support somewhat, but only until your users migrate off of it. If you look at the Honolulu transit project (Formerly HART, now called Skyline), I think it shows everything wrong with US transit projects: 1. It goes nowhere useful, only going to a bunch of random places on the west side of Oahu where no one really goes. 2. It was pitched as an economic uplift project, not a transit project. "If we build a train in these largely-ignored areas, it will help the people there!" 3. It took years and years to build, full of cost overruns, because it was also pitched mainly as a job creation project. You can't sell a transit project based on that alone, so instead they're pitched as welfare or job-creation programs, which creates the wrong set of incentives. After all, if the project takes longer, that's more jobs!
- dado3212 2y ago
  Why is this unique to America? Why doesn’t this apply to the UK?
  - lmm 2y ago
    In the UK anyone who matters lives or at least works in London, which has always had decent transit and has been gradually, incrementally nudging cars out of the centre for about two decades now (congestion charge, ULEZ, gradual pedestrianization of very central parts) as well as improving the alternatives (crossrail, actually decent cycle routes). Part of it is probably simply that London never completely stopped building new transit for too long; as much as UK people complain about transit development happening in fits and starts, there's always been a sufficiently new and shiny line to point to as a success and an example of how transit should be (Victoria, JLE, DLR, crossrail). But I suspect it's mostly just not having your expectations set by a largely LA-based media.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    It does apply to the UK. Very little new public transit gets built, what's there is permanently overloaded. Whenever I visit I regularly end up on trains where you have to stand for the entire 1hr journey. Many lines are full and can't be easily upgraded short of massive signalling reworks (moving block etc). Reliability is poor because there's no slack in the system. Root cause is more people + little/no new capacity.
    - apexalpha 2y ago
      HS2? New Crossrail thing? Seems like a bit of a stretch to say the UK isn't at least trying.
      - mike_hearn 2y ago
        I didn't say it doesn't try, I said relatively little gets built. Crossrail is a great project, notable for its uniqueness, and the fact that so much is underground (the only place you can build nowadays, and even then just barely). HS2 has to go above ground and doesn't seem to really be happening.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      It’s all relative, of course. I live in Dublin, a city not exactly known for its amazing public transport (we are currently on attempt number three to build a proper metro - we’re currently at the planning approval stage, so it’s probably doomed). At some point a colleague from San Francisco who’d been living here a while mentioned how good the public transport was (and this was a few years back; it was worse back then than now). I was quite confused, until I visited San Francisco. And then on the other hand, every time I’m in Germany I’m amazed at how good the public transport is. But I’m fully aware that complaining about the trains is basically a national sport in Germany. Like, you’re complaining about the trains being full, but at least the trains _exist_.
- pylua 2y ago
  There’s an argument in Atlanta that mass transit hasn’t expanded more outwards because it tends to bring in more problems in terms of people. I think people are starting to change on this, but the cost would now be massive,
  - Mountain_Skies 2y ago
    Atlanta's one huge success with transit that it doesn't get enough credit for is that it connects directly to the airport. So many other cities with "better" transit have complex schemes of switching between different buses operated by the airport authority and the city before you can get to the main system. In Atlanta you simply go over to baggage claim and the train is right there. Too bad they screwed this up when they built the International Terminal, which is connected with a bus on surface streets that gets stuck in traffic and at lights. If you're flying an airline with a presence in the domestic terminal, you can use the internal transit system to get to the International Terminal but otherwise you're stuck switching from the train to the bus or vice versa. It's an annoying bit of extra friction that shouldn't exist.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Atlanta’s huge success is that the trains run on time and they have been able to maintain the automated train control. Atlanta doesn’t get enough credit for being a blue city that actually does some basic stuff right.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      Portland, Salt Lake City have pretty good connections. Seattle also if you don't mind walking through the parking garage (often security will snake back to the lightrail station, you know you are in for a bad day). SFO has Bart to the airport, Caltrain is also possible but you have to connect to Bart for one station. I admit that I've been to SFO a few times and have never bothered taking Bart (in contrast, I always take Max from PDX).
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      Chicago is like that. Both O'Hare and Midway have CTA trains directly into the terminal.
- afavour 2y ago
  While attitude plays a part I can’t help but feel like ineptitude and broad corruption play a huge role as well. In NYC transit isn’t viewed the way you’re describing it, pretty much everyone takes it. And yet NYC’s system expands at a glacial pace. A good part of the reason is because everything costs so damn much. Part of that is everyone wanting a piece of the pie so the simplest, cheapest option is very rarely the one chosen.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    NYC used to have Robert Moses backstopping builds. Like him or hate him, he got things built on a scale nobody has managed to achieve since. In fact a lot of the infrastructure and parks people take for granted today were Moses’ handiwork. I’m not suggesting that we need another Bob Moses, but he does prove there is some way to cut through the glacial movement of politics and bureaucracy
    - onecommentman 2y ago
      If the only person in 100 years to get things done in infrastructure in NYC was Bob Moses, then I think it’s time to admit that NYC needs another Bob Moses.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Or needs fixing so that there's more than one person in 100 years who can build things.
- qwerpy 2y ago
  Seattle-area commuter here. I have to agree, transit seems mostly designed for people who don't value their time. Which don't tend to be the highly paid tech workers with families. I tried so many times to give transit "one more try". The straw that broke my back was when they silently canceled 2 buses in a row for my route, on the coldest day of the year, for a route that has 20 minutes between buses. And my suburb commuter route doesn't even have the big city problems that plague the Seattle buses. Now I drive my single occupant 6603 lb truck to work once or twice a week, and WFH the rest of the time.
  - mrtesthah 2y ago
    You could choose to ride an e-bike instead.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      E-bikes are great in Seattle until they are stolen. Bike theft is the one single issue that is driving down bike ridership in the city, since police and the city government don't really care about it.
      - Empact 2y ago
        There are various ways to hide an airtag on a bike. Consequences are the way to deter thieves.
        SoftTalker 2y ago
        The cops don't do much about bike theft. The perpetrators are the homeless, and they're basically untouchable. They have no assets, they can't pay any fines, and it's too expensive to keep them in jail. Edit to add: It would be nice if they at least recovered the bikes and returned them to their owners but it seems like if they can't collect fines or put someone in prison they aren't interested. It woudn't be hard. Go to the local homeless hangouts. Any bikes nicer than what you could buy at Walmart are stolen, and most of the other ones are too. Run the serial numbers against theft reports and load them out.
- thayne 2y ago
  It's kind of a reinforcing cycle. Since public transit is terrible, everyone wants cars. Since everyone wants cars, there isn't a lot of interest in public transit.
  - conductr 2y ago
    Yep. It's chicken and egg problem. You have to invest so heavily before reaching a tipping point of it being a realistic alternative to cars for most American's. Only at that point does it make sense. Where as with cars, we've already made much of that investment. I know it has a high maintenance, economic, and ecologic burden but that's not what we've optimized for. We've optimized for complete freedom and autonomy of movement. We have a number of light rail lines in my city. They mean nothing to the vast majority of our citizens because they either live too far or work too far. And by too far, I mean that proverbial last mile. The other problem is they're not always direct. Just like air travel, this adds time to your trip. People are willing to accept it on air travel because it's rather uncommon, but when your daily commute could be 20 minutes by car or 45 minutes by rail most people will drive. Not to mention, the run times are commonly every 20-30 minutes and are not always consistently running on time. This means even if you plan your day perfectly, a single round trip could leave you sitting for up to an hour at the rail stops just waiting on top of your 45 minute travel time. We have auto traffic, but nothing that severe. We also have sprawled significantly. The implication of which being people drive long distances to work as the status quo. With transportation, long distances means more stops and longer travel time. When driving, most people's commutes see an extra 10-30% of time than non-rush times. But it's fairly predictable and much quicker than trying to get to rail. All that is also ignoring the other big items: weather & culture. I'm in Dallas, although this applies to many southern cities, where people most people are not used to the weather. Going to speak broadly, this applies to a vast majority of folks. They leave their HVAC home to their HVAC car to their HVAC offices and so on. The women especially get dressed up and do their make-up and hair daily before ever being seen my a non-housemate. Men are often still dressing in clothing that they'd like to keep clean. We don't carry changes of clothes around with us or have a natural style (like I see in European cities where biking is normal). Sweating and being rained on and such is completely foreign to us. We generally wouldn't show up to work after having walked a mile outside. This is why we don't even ride bikes for transportation even when going short distances. It would require a huge shift in perspective and culture around these things.
- earthboundkid 2y ago
  For Skyline, I don’t think you can discount all of the years of political effort to try to cancel it. All that work did was just to slow it down and make it more expensive and risky for the companies involved. In theory, starting in West Oahu made sense because it’s cheaper to build out there, and TOD will grow the tax base to support the urban stations, but you have to actually build something for that to work.
  - infotainment 2y ago
    Oh definitely, we can't discount the effects of lobbying efforts. It very clearly should have gone from the airport to Waikiki Beach (or at the very least Ala Monana center), which would have actually taken tourist traffic off the roads. But if it did that, those tourists might not rent cars or take taxis! The rental car lobby and taxi lobby don't like that one bit.
- giantg2 2y ago
  When I was out there The Bus was great. By far one of the best public transit I've seen in the US (clean, mostly on time, seemed pretty safe, fairly priced). I believe I took some sort of light rail for a few trips as well. I suspect a lot of the tourist money helps.
- nox101 2y ago
  Repeating myself, I believe that many countries find a good way to make train stations destinations in and of themsevles Japan, for instance, many train stations have small/medium/large shopping centers built on them. The train makes money not only by fares by but renting out the shops, running department stores, groceries stores, renting offices, apartments, etc... There's what I think is a positive feedback loop. That's clearly not the only way to do it but it might be a way in the USA? because treating it as a public service just makes it a political tax burden. Something to be cut, under funded, etc.... Los Angeles used to have one of the largest public transit systems. Over 1000 miles of track (compare to NYC 650 miles?) and tons of stations. Most of it was built commercially to sell housing. According to this documentary it worked, until the deals they'd made with the cities to maintain the roads the trains went down ended up costing too much money. https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwards/dp/B01KBFJHFC https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwar... This video also shows two extensive train systems from past L.A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfUFhchIlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfUFhchIlM It feels like in Japan, they kind of solved that issue by letting the train companies run their stations as retail/office spaces and all the other stuff mentioned above. I think Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong probably have government based public transportation but it feels like they've managed to turned many stations into commerce hubs at least.
  - acchow 2y ago
    Hong Kong’s MTR is actually a publicly listed company. They are actually a real estate developer that happens to run and expand a subway system
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Japan, for instance, many train stations have small/medium/large shopping centers built on them. The train makes money not only by fares by but renting out the shops, running department stores, groceries stores, renting offices, apartments, etc... There's what I think is a positive feedback loop.' Yes, many of the transit companies in Japan are really more accurately described as real estate companies that own and operate train lines. Most of their profits come from the real estate, not the trains, and the trains are mainly a way to get people to go to the properties. One big difference you can see between the US and Japan along these lines is the stations: in the US (and Canada from what I've seen), there's absolutely nothing inside the stations, just fare gates and a platform and train tracks. In Japan, the station has vending machines, shops, underground connections to nearby buildings, spaces for vendors to set up temporary stalls, etc. In the high-traffic stations, it's easy to stop in a convenience store, or in a Starbucks, before getting on your next train, and of course the train company is getting money from that in the form of rent. Some really big stations have larger shopping areas attached. But the US seems allergic to renting out commercial space in stations for some reason, and wants transit systems to get all their funding from fares and taxes.
- acchow 2y ago
  > transit is largely viewed as a welfare program for poor people who are not (yet) able to afford cars. In most of the US, transit riders can’t wait to be able to afford a car and get out of transit. For good reason: the transit experience for them is terrible
dado3212 2y ago
This article does an okay job posing the question, and then stops. Is there an actual answer or work on an answer that people would point to?
- pgodzin 2y ago
  https://transitcosts.com/ https://transitcosts.com/
twright 2y ago
This seems like a plug for a book than anything with a definitive answer. The pull quote near the end of the article implies that the rest of the world has simply caught up and is pressing forward while the US has simply stopped. I was in Florence not long ago and they are building out a very impressive light-rail network [1]. Twenty years ago a similarly ambitious network was planned in Cincinnati, OH and it was voted down 2-1 [2]. [1] https://en.comune.fi.it/administration/tramway/system.html https://en.comune.fi.it/administration/tramway/system.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroMoves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroMoves
- robwwilliams 2y ago
  Agree, interesting question that this article does not even begin to answer. Frustrating.
- onecommentman 2y ago
  The tone of the article is one of advocacy rather than reasoned analysis, as I assume is the tone of the book. That is not what public transit needs at this point in the US. Many urban transportation types and city planners in general give off a culty, can-I-tell-you-about-my-Lord-and-Savior-Mass-Transit vibe that is very off-putting to many, if not most Americans. Their writings gloss over the practical issues of American weather, last-mile, families with children, lugging home shopping, aging…along with deprecating any personal valuations of saving time, spontaneity, avoiding unpleasant interactions, carrying your large purchases with you…. You ignore my real world, lived experience in your screeds, I ignore you. And so they shout into the void.
sb057 2y ago
Because the people who would use public transit are not politically relevant.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  That's begging the question isn't it? In places with quality transit, even the creme de la creme are riding it.
  - onecommentman 2y ago
    Not the *real crème de la crème”, unless it is a photo op. Not regularly, and they have access to limos whenever the occasion calls for it. Their staff handles the logistics and staff quite often use automobiles. But an occasional trip to Lincoln Center, sure. Even shopping on 5th Avenue, though the packages will be delivered later by an auto or van or whatever vehicles those sorts of people use.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      New York doesn't have good public transit, he was talking about other countries where the top do use public transit since it is clean, comfortable and safe.
    - bmicraft 2y ago
      Or president is regularly seen riding the tram by the general public
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      I mean, it depends who you’re talking about, but there are plenty of cities where the upper-middle-class use the public transport.
hnburnsy 2y ago
>These are the statistics underlying the reality that in San Francisco; Washington, D.C.; Boston; Atlanta; and many other major cities in the U.S., not a single mile of rail transit is currently under construction. Here are some of the current U.S. cities with rail projects under construction: Los Angeles, California - Extensions to the existing light rail network Denver, Colorado - Commuter rail lines San Diego, California - New light rail extensions Seattle, Washington - Ongoing Commuter rail lines Minneapolis, Minnesota - Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) project
- lurking_swe 2y ago
  can add Honolulu to the list
- latchkey 2y ago
  As much as I like to see it happening, San Diego is too spread out geographically to make use of their rail projects effectively, unless you're really well situated on the lines. That said, it makes for a great way to explore the city for a day.
giantg2 2y ago
The heart of the problem is that cars became popular for the majority of the people due to freedom and convenience, causing most of the infrastructure to focus on them. The existing public transit saw worse service and problems such as crime or cleanliness. New projects become more difficult and costly to build, and were hijacked for political causes. Willingness to fund even the existing projects fell. Nobody wants to ride public transit that is unreliable/late, has limited service times/areas, prone to strikes, dirty or unsafe, etc. It's easier and/or better to own a car or Uber in most areas. It's not really going to improve since we're stuck in a catch-22.
- infotainment 2y ago
  It's not just market forces though; most municipalities in the US legally mandate a focus on cars. For example, most downtown areas in the US are pre-existing, as they're largely illegal to build today due to mandatory off-street parking minimums among other onerous requirements.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Those mandates are due to the market forces. Go ahead and build a building without parking. Tenants or customers are going to bring their cars anyways and try to find street parking, or they'll go somewhere else. If you make it inconvenient for car and the other option is inconvenient public transit, then people will just look for alternative housing or stores that are more convenient.
    - infotainment 2y ago
      Why not just let market forces handle that then? If no one is going to go to my shop with no parking, that's fine. Let it get built, and then let it die due to lack of business. No need for any heavy-handed mandates.
      - HDThoreaun 2y ago
        Parking is an externality. The surrounding businesses and residents get pissed when the new development takes "their" spots.
meroes 2y ago
I was incredibly lucky the smallish town (40k pop) I went to college in had some remarkably good transportation I had never seen before. There was a bus that cost $.50 per ride circa 2010 and went to about a dozen locations within 20 miles, two different shopping centers (their main attractions being Walmarts but still), the university, the community college, several neighborhoods, and downtown locations, among a few others. Second there was a rental car option through the university where anyone with a drivers license and and a debit or credit card could use it (eg you didn’t have to be 25 or have a credit card). You could reserve time slots in advance online, and it was only $5 and hour or so. There were multiple cars. The bus eventually went up to $1 per ride but I still think about these two options and wish my town had something like it. With a few small improvements I don’t see why we can’t reasonably subsidize these relatively cheap options in most towns/small cities. The rental car one would be harder, but even the bus would suffice. It notably didn’t stop at any grocery stores, only Walmarts so that’s another thing to improve. But I’d give up my car in a second for that bus back home. I’m not even sure if this is still their active website http://0060325.netsolhost.com/about.htm http://0060325.netsolhost.com/about.htm but it gives you a picture of what I’m talking about. There’s either another service or a replacement that is $2.00 instead of $1.00 that goes by DCT from what I can tell. I don’t live there anymore so hard to know the current setup. I’m really underselling how good that bus was/is.
malloryerik 2y ago
But also, why is it hard, expensive, and slow for the U.S. to build anything public?
janalsncm 2y ago
My question is, who is constructing these rail systems in each of the countries? My understanding was that Chinese companies had built a lot of the biggest subway systems in various cities from Kiev to Singapore. For political reasons that would be untenable in the US. Therefore we have to pay full price to build a thing we’re not good at building and don’t have the ramped up supply chains to support. If there’s only one company left that builds a component you need, guess what? You pay whatever they ask.
- bmicraft 2y ago
  Most European cities don't have any Chinese involvement.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > My understanding was that Chinese companies had built a lot of the biggest subway systems in various cities from Kiev to Singapore. From Kyiv to Singapore, sure, but not far west of Kyiv. I’m not aware of _any_ Chinese transport project in Western Europe?
  - fragmede 2y ago
    The MTR Corporation out of Hong Kong runs trains for Stockholm, Sweden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation?wprov=sfti1#Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation?wprov=sfti1#Sw...
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      I mean, that’s a public multinational which runs a rail system. You were originally talking about _building_ them.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        different person
codeangler 2y ago
Context: this is a copy I posted r/boulder some years ago to people's wish for ( long promised) rail to Denver. I commuted to Denver daily from Boulder, CO for three years and never drove during that time. My shortlist of why I only want bus service to Boulder County ( for reference I typically pick up the bus at Table Mesa). I only moved to Boulder in 2009 so I know I haven't carried as much tax burden as some people who "dream of light rail to Denver" but I'm very very happy with the FlatIron Flyers. 1. Buses can adapt to weather conditions - Frequently coworkers training up from the tech center were 10x more likely to have issues with trains when the weather was icy, during the three years that I compiled this list of why I prefer buses. 2.Buses can adapt to other buses on the same route failing - the RTD train infrastructure has very few places that light rail can pass one another so it doesn't matter if your train is working if the one ahead of your fails 3. Buses do not have routes altered/closed for maintenance - when I would take the light rail to the company's Parker office or visiting friends it was surprising to have to get off and catch a bus around a section of rail under repair. - I acknowledge that sometimes specific stops can be closed or moved but rarely is a whole section down and require alternate solutions (i.e. deboarding the train to board a bus to deboard on the other side of maintenance and board a new train) 4. Buses have express options. - see the comment above regarding the few places that RTD rails can pass other trains - note when the W line opened the express bus routes were removed, I think that was also true with another line but I can't remember. My favorite part of this is the coworkers I know who used that route started driving because the train was significantly longer commute times. 5. Buses typically have storage for up to six bikes per vehicle and don't block entries of others - as an avid bike-the-final-mile commuter having storage for bikes that don't hinder other passengers boarding or exiting is nice (if you want to complain that it sometimes means staying at a few stops longer go ahead) 6. Buses Can turn over quicker at end of the line - waiting for the E Line to swap directions at union station was comically slow when compared to catching the FF2 that just dropped off people and pulled around to pick up. 7. Buses can reroute around accidents that happen. - E line and other northbound rail had to stop because of a car accident on the I-25 on the other side of a jersey wall where someone died. But the law says all traffic must be stopped from crossing an area of a certain diameter from the accident scene. So the next train had to stop. No place for passengers to deboard in the middle of the railway and blocked trains behind it. - See comment above where other trains would be impacted as well 8. IMO, The payment and boarding method is a better User experience on the bus. - this was more true before the mobile app could hold an annual pass 9. I'm sure I could come up with more reasons. - oh, I'd rather take the AB to the airport than the A-train (sheesh that is a long train ride for such a short distance) - oh, someone just mentioned the "rich people lane" yes, the bus uses the HOV lane! How great. 10. Air circulation is better inter city buses When my office opens I'll return to bike/bus commuting. It is a bummer that during covid the express buses have stopped but understandable. The few times that I have bused in during 2020 the added time of FF1 was noticeable. Typically bike/express-bus takes me 50minutes house door to office door
iJohnDoe 2y ago
My answer without reading the article. It’s hard in the US because of politics, corruption, favors, contracts for the purpose to burn money, transit other than cars is only for poor people (a US thing), poor people aren’t a priority, reputation for working on transit for people won’t get you reelected by your rich donors and constituents. It’s kind of a shame because whenever Americans get back from Europe they rave about being able to take the train everywhere.
Ologn 2y ago
I lived in New York City until 2020. According to the 2010 census, the majority of households in New York City do not own a car. I got around fine via buses, subway and railroads. If need be I could take a taxi. The subway runs all night, all over the city, as do buses. The city even improved its transit - the subway now goes to the Javits Center. The Long Island Railroad now goes to Grand Central Station. I was in San Francisco once and the latest Caltrain going from Sunnyvale to San Francisco was before 11:30PM, and the latest Caltrain going from San Francisco to Sunnyvale was three minutes after midnight. In New York PATH trains, LIRR trains, Metro North trains, New Jersey transit trains all leave well past that.
AlbertCory 2y ago
This seems to come up once a month or so on HN. Here is a non-ideological take, which I suppose means everyone will hate it because it doesn't echo their pet theory: The US's basic problem with large building projects nowadays is federalism. There are so many different jurisdictions that opponents can always find some court or legislative body that they can exploit to slow down or stop the project. Everything else flows from that. Lawsuits? Too many courts. Legislative opposition? Too many governmental units. Even if the public as a whole supports it, some jurisdictions will not. Administrative permit hearings, which go on endlessly? Too many governmental units. Yes, things used to work better in the US, but things change and all systems decay.
- xeromal 2y ago
  Too many fingers in the pot. I like it
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
emsign 2y ago
The US is a big country.
- xeromal 2y ago
  Big and empty in a lot of places
- jjcm 2y ago
  Australia around the same size, but has excellent public transportation (relative to the US).
  - sien 2y ago
    Australian transport is still dominated by cars though. https://chartingtransport.com/category/australian-cities/ https://chartingtransport.com/category/australian-cities/ At least 80% of surface passenger kilometers are in cars.
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    Most of austrailias population is concentrated around a few areas. The us population is very spread out.
ackbar03 2y ago
The new York metro has pretty much become a prop location for tiktokers. They might as well make it an official partnership at this point and get some of their fare revenue back
rayval 2y ago
The article mentions how global cities outside the US are building out urban rail systems. Here's some more detail about China, which has the two largest transit systems in the world: Shanghai and Beijing. In 1993, Shanghai had one line running 2.7 miles with 4 stations. Less than 30 years later, the system had 15 lines, 500 miles of track, and 500 stations. [1] And in that same time frame, the Beijing subway system was expanded, from 2 lines in 2002 to 27 lines and 500 miles of track, with 13 million riders per day in 2022. [2] Also in that time, 30 other cities in China got subway systems as well.[3] In 1993, China's per-capita GDP was $537. By comparison, per-capita GDP in the US was 50 times larger (about $23k). Since then, the gap has narrowed. US per-capita GDP is now 5x of China (66k vs 12k). China demonstrates that, even with small GDP, if you prioritize the needs of the people over entrenched commercial interests, it can be done. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Shanghai_Metro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Shanghai_Metro [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Subway [3] https://qz.com/1010911/a-beautiful-data-animation-shows-the-unprecedented-speed-of-development-of-chinas-rail-system https://qz.com/1010911/a-beautiful-data-animation-shows-the-...
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. And their all-suburban cities aren't dense enough to make it work economically or practically anyway: everything is just too far apart. Finally, the largest transit system in the world isn't in China, it's in Tokyo, Japan (though to be fair, it isn't really a single system since it's run by many different companies).
  - Kbelicius 2y ago
    > In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks. Do you think that those people would still want a car if they lived somewhere with a good public transit and walkability?
thefz 2y ago
When you treat everything as a product that must be profited off, maximizing gain and minimizing the expense, that's what you get. Public transit does not need to turn a profit, it's a public service. It must provide a service. It is already paid off. "... but muh capitalism brought me the iPhone!" Yeah, what about being able to walk your fucking neighborhood though?
nathanaldensr 2y ago
Has the author of this article ever driven across the US? It takes days and days. The US is huge; it makes absolutely no sense to build mass transit connecting that many places where people live when it's so uneconomical. The US isn't China; the government can't just decree that something happen.
- Jensson 2y ago
  The states along the coasts aren't huge (they are roughly like large European countries) and there isn't good public transit there either compared to the rest of the first world, and that is where most people live.
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    No one is really talking about connecting tiny places really faraway from each other. But cities in 1-6 hours drive of each other and sensible locations inside them clearly make very much sense to connect with public transit.
    - onecommentman 2y ago
      Unless almost everyone who wants to travel already owns a car which they and their family can quickly, safely and directly drive (with reasonable luggage) to the very doorstep of any given 1-6 hour destination. Which is the case in the US. Will be even more the case if cheap Chinese electric cars ever hit the shores. Makes very much less sense then.
      - rsynnott 2y ago
        San Francisco to LA is about a seven hour drive. It’s about 90 minutes flight, plus getting to the airport and getting through security in the airport and all the general airport-induced slowness. Given a top-quality conventional high-speed line (300km/h) it would be two hours (so in practice faster than the flight).
- shiroiushi 2y ago
Gud 2y ago
Politics. You have a leadership and public hostile to public transport, simple as that. I have lived in some cities where things are not like this. Where public transportation is amazing and getting better by the year. It’s a shame every time I read people ignorant how a modern city can function with a pedestrian/bicycle/tram/bus/train. Where it’s quiet and calm. But how do you convince people who have only seen the insides of cars that public transportation can be superior?
normalaccess 2y ago
America is HUGE... And all of the big cities seem unable to herd their own cats. People often forget that the USA is really 50 small countries wearing a trench coat. Just look the maps linked below. The EU has all its people piled up close where as the US has HUGE tracts of low population areas. That's why you'll never see a high speed coast to coast rail system here. logistically it's just not possible (at least not on the west coast). I live in one of the unpopulated areas and by car it takes over an hour of continuous travel at 70 MPH (115 KPH) to get to a smallish big city. There's just too much empty space. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/geo/population-distribution-2020.html https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/geo/popul... https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/fragmentation-pressure-and-population-density https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/fragmentatio... I could see local areas like California or New York getting some high speed rail but even then, how many people would use it and where would they be going?
- conor- 2y ago
  I've seen a lot of suggestions that there should at least be a high speed rail corridor from Chicago to NYC and one from SF to LA because those are 2 of the most highly trafficked domestic flight paths. The fact there isn't really high speed rail connections across large cities in the Midwest is kind of silly considering there isn't much terrain to contend with like there is on the coasts. Even the 1 new route Amtrak introduced from Chicago to Minneapolis has seen pretty high demand.
  - marssaxman 2y ago
    High speed rail from SF to LA is more than a suggestion, it's an active megaproject which broke ground nine years ago: https://hsr.ca.gov/ https://hsr.ca.gov/
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Yeah. I'm not sure that it will be rideable from SF to LA in my lifetime (even with generous values of "SF" and "LA"). So, yeah, they're working on it... at a glacial pace. And they haven't even gotten to the hard parts yet.

50 points by jseliger 2y ago

I think the biggest problem is attitude; in the US, transit is largely viewed as a welfare program for poor people who are not (yet) able to afford cars. To put it in HN terms, Americans see it like a deprecated API; something you're obligated to support somewhat, but only until your users migrate off of it. If you look at the Honolulu transit project (Formerly HART, now called Skyline), I think it shows everything wrong with US transit projects: 1. It goes nowhere useful, only going to a bunch of random places on the west side of Oahu where no one really goes. 2. It was pitched as an economic uplift project, not a transit project. "If we build a train in these largely-ignored areas, it will help the people there!" 3. It took years and years to build, full of cost overruns, because it was also pitched mainly as a job creation project. You can't sell a transit project based on that alone, so instead they're pitched as welfare or job-creation programs, which creates the wrong set of incentives. After all, if the project takes longer, that's more jobs!

dado3212 2y ago
Why is this unique to America? Why doesn’t this apply to the UK?
- lmm 2y ago
  In the UK anyone who matters lives or at least works in London, which has always had decent transit and has been gradually, incrementally nudging cars out of the centre for about two decades now (congestion charge, ULEZ, gradual pedestrianization of very central parts) as well as improving the alternatives (crossrail, actually decent cycle routes). Part of it is probably simply that London never completely stopped building new transit for too long; as much as UK people complain about transit development happening in fits and starts, there's always been a sufficiently new and shiny line to point to as a success and an example of how transit should be (Victoria, JLE, DLR, crossrail). But I suspect it's mostly just not having your expectations set by a largely LA-based media.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  It does apply to the UK. Very little new public transit gets built, what's there is permanently overloaded. Whenever I visit I regularly end up on trains where you have to stand for the entire 1hr journey. Many lines are full and can't be easily upgraded short of massive signalling reworks (moving block etc). Reliability is poor because there's no slack in the system. Root cause is more people + little/no new capacity.
  - apexalpha 2y ago
    HS2? New Crossrail thing? Seems like a bit of a stretch to say the UK isn't at least trying.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      I didn't say it doesn't try, I said relatively little gets built. Crossrail is a great project, notable for its uniqueness, and the fact that so much is underground (the only place you can build nowadays, and even then just barely). HS2 has to go above ground and doesn't seem to really be happening.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    It’s all relative, of course. I live in Dublin, a city not exactly known for its amazing public transport (we are currently on attempt number three to build a proper metro - we’re currently at the planning approval stage, so it’s probably doomed). At some point a colleague from San Francisco who’d been living here a while mentioned how good the public transport was (and this was a few years back; it was worse back then than now). I was quite confused, until I visited San Francisco. And then on the other hand, every time I’m in Germany I’m amazed at how good the public transport is. But I’m fully aware that complaining about the trains is basically a national sport in Germany. Like, you’re complaining about the trains being full, but at least the trains _exist_.
pylua 2y ago
There’s an argument in Atlanta that mass transit hasn’t expanded more outwards because it tends to bring in more problems in terms of people. I think people are starting to change on this, but the cost would now be massive,
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  Atlanta's one huge success with transit that it doesn't get enough credit for is that it connects directly to the airport. So many other cities with "better" transit have complex schemes of switching between different buses operated by the airport authority and the city before you can get to the main system. In Atlanta you simply go over to baggage claim and the train is right there. Too bad they screwed this up when they built the International Terminal, which is connected with a bus on surface streets that gets stuck in traffic and at lights. If you're flying an airline with a presence in the domestic terminal, you can use the internal transit system to get to the International Terminal but otherwise you're stuck switching from the train to the bus or vice versa. It's an annoying bit of extra friction that shouldn't exist.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Atlanta’s huge success is that the trains run on time and they have been able to maintain the automated train control. Atlanta doesn’t get enough credit for being a blue city that actually does some basic stuff right.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Portland, Salt Lake City have pretty good connections. Seattle also if you don't mind walking through the parking garage (often security will snake back to the lightrail station, you know you are in for a bad day). SFO has Bart to the airport, Caltrain is also possible but you have to connect to Bart for one station. I admit that I've been to SFO a few times and have never bothered taking Bart (in contrast, I always take Max from PDX).
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Chicago is like that. Both O'Hare and Midway have CTA trains directly into the terminal.
afavour 2y ago
While attitude plays a part I can’t help but feel like ineptitude and broad corruption play a huge role as well. In NYC transit isn’t viewed the way you’re describing it, pretty much everyone takes it. And yet NYC’s system expands at a glacial pace. A good part of the reason is because everything costs so damn much. Part of that is everyone wanting a piece of the pie so the simplest, cheapest option is very rarely the one chosen.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  NYC used to have Robert Moses backstopping builds. Like him or hate him, he got things built on a scale nobody has managed to achieve since. In fact a lot of the infrastructure and parks people take for granted today were Moses’ handiwork. I’m not suggesting that we need another Bob Moses, but he does prove there is some way to cut through the glacial movement of politics and bureaucracy
  - onecommentman 2y ago
    If the only person in 100 years to get things done in infrastructure in NYC was Bob Moses, then I think it’s time to admit that NYC needs another Bob Moses.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Or needs fixing so that there's more than one person in 100 years who can build things.
qwerpy 2y ago
Seattle-area commuter here. I have to agree, transit seems mostly designed for people who don't value their time. Which don't tend to be the highly paid tech workers with families. I tried so many times to give transit "one more try". The straw that broke my back was when they silently canceled 2 buses in a row for my route, on the coldest day of the year, for a route that has 20 minutes between buses. And my suburb commuter route doesn't even have the big city problems that plague the Seattle buses. Now I drive my single occupant 6603 lb truck to work once or twice a week, and WFH the rest of the time.
- mrtesthah 2y ago
  You could choose to ride an e-bike instead.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    E-bikes are great in Seattle until they are stolen. Bike theft is the one single issue that is driving down bike ridership in the city, since police and the city government don't really care about it.
    - Empact 2y ago
      There are various ways to hide an airtag on a bike. Consequences are the way to deter thieves.
      - SoftTalker 2y ago
        The cops don't do much about bike theft. The perpetrators are the homeless, and they're basically untouchable. They have no assets, they can't pay any fines, and it's too expensive to keep them in jail. Edit to add: It would be nice if they at least recovered the bikes and returned them to their owners but it seems like if they can't collect fines or put someone in prison they aren't interested. It woudn't be hard. Go to the local homeless hangouts. Any bikes nicer than what you could buy at Walmart are stolen, and most of the other ones are too. Run the serial numbers against theft reports and load them out.
thayne 2y ago
It's kind of a reinforcing cycle. Since public transit is terrible, everyone wants cars. Since everyone wants cars, there isn't a lot of interest in public transit.
- conductr 2y ago
  Yep. It's chicken and egg problem. You have to invest so heavily before reaching a tipping point of it being a realistic alternative to cars for most American's. Only at that point does it make sense. Where as with cars, we've already made much of that investment. I know it has a high maintenance, economic, and ecologic burden but that's not what we've optimized for. We've optimized for complete freedom and autonomy of movement. We have a number of light rail lines in my city. They mean nothing to the vast majority of our citizens because they either live too far or work too far. And by too far, I mean that proverbial last mile. The other problem is they're not always direct. Just like air travel, this adds time to your trip. People are willing to accept it on air travel because it's rather uncommon, but when your daily commute could be 20 minutes by car or 45 minutes by rail most people will drive. Not to mention, the run times are commonly every 20-30 minutes and are not always consistently running on time. This means even if you plan your day perfectly, a single round trip could leave you sitting for up to an hour at the rail stops just waiting on top of your 45 minute travel time. We have auto traffic, but nothing that severe. We also have sprawled significantly. The implication of which being people drive long distances to work as the status quo. With transportation, long distances means more stops and longer travel time. When driving, most people's commutes see an extra 10-30% of time than non-rush times. But it's fairly predictable and much quicker than trying to get to rail. All that is also ignoring the other big items: weather & culture. I'm in Dallas, although this applies to many southern cities, where people most people are not used to the weather. Going to speak broadly, this applies to a vast majority of folks. They leave their HVAC home to their HVAC car to their HVAC offices and so on. The women especially get dressed up and do their make-up and hair daily before ever being seen my a non-housemate. Men are often still dressing in clothing that they'd like to keep clean. We don't carry changes of clothes around with us or have a natural style (like I see in European cities where biking is normal). Sweating and being rained on and such is completely foreign to us. We generally wouldn't show up to work after having walked a mile outside. This is why we don't even ride bikes for transportation even when going short distances. It would require a huge shift in perspective and culture around these things.
earthboundkid 2y ago
For Skyline, I don’t think you can discount all of the years of political effort to try to cancel it. All that work did was just to slow it down and make it more expensive and risky for the companies involved. In theory, starting in West Oahu made sense because it’s cheaper to build out there, and TOD will grow the tax base to support the urban stations, but you have to actually build something for that to work.
- infotainment 2y ago
  Oh definitely, we can't discount the effects of lobbying efforts. It very clearly should have gone from the airport to Waikiki Beach (or at the very least Ala Monana center), which would have actually taken tourist traffic off the roads. But if it did that, those tourists might not rent cars or take taxis! The rental car lobby and taxi lobby don't like that one bit.
giantg2 2y ago
When I was out there The Bus was great. By far one of the best public transit I've seen in the US (clean, mostly on time, seemed pretty safe, fairly priced). I believe I took some sort of light rail for a few trips as well. I suspect a lot of the tourist money helps.
nox101 2y ago
Repeating myself, I believe that many countries find a good way to make train stations destinations in and of themsevles Japan, for instance, many train stations have small/medium/large shopping centers built on them. The train makes money not only by fares by but renting out the shops, running department stores, groceries stores, renting offices, apartments, etc... There's what I think is a positive feedback loop. That's clearly not the only way to do it but it might be a way in the USA? because treating it as a public service just makes it a political tax burden. Something to be cut, under funded, etc.... Los Angeles used to have one of the largest public transit systems. Over 1000 miles of track (compare to NYC 650 miles?) and tons of stations. Most of it was built commercially to sell housing. According to this documentary it worked, until the deals they'd made with the cities to maintain the roads the trains went down ended up costing too much money. https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwards/dp/B01KBFJHFC https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwar... This video also shows two extensive train systems from past L.A. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfUFhchIlM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQfUFhchIlM It feels like in Japan, they kind of solved that issue by letting the train companies run their stations as retail/office spaces and all the other stuff mentioned above. I think Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong probably have government based public transportation but it feels like they've managed to turned many stations into commerce hubs at least.
- acchow 2y ago
  Hong Kong’s MTR is actually a publicly listed company. They are actually a real estate developer that happens to run and expand a subway system
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Japan, for instance, many train stations have small/medium/large shopping centers built on them. The train makes money not only by fares by but renting out the shops, running department stores, groceries stores, renting offices, apartments, etc... There's what I think is a positive feedback loop.' Yes, many of the transit companies in Japan are really more accurately described as real estate companies that own and operate train lines. Most of their profits come from the real estate, not the trains, and the trains are mainly a way to get people to go to the properties. One big difference you can see between the US and Japan along these lines is the stations: in the US (and Canada from what I've seen), there's absolutely nothing inside the stations, just fare gates and a platform and train tracks. In Japan, the station has vending machines, shops, underground connections to nearby buildings, spaces for vendors to set up temporary stalls, etc. In the high-traffic stations, it's easy to stop in a convenience store, or in a Starbucks, before getting on your next train, and of course the train company is getting money from that in the form of rent. Some really big stations have larger shopping areas attached. But the US seems allergic to renting out commercial space in stations for some reason, and wants transit systems to get all their funding from fares and taxes.
acchow 2y ago
> transit is largely viewed as a welfare program for poor people who are not (yet) able to afford cars. In most of the US, transit riders can’t wait to be able to afford a car and get out of transit. For good reason: the transit experience for them is terrible

dado3212 2y ago

This article does an okay job posing the question, and then stops. Is there an actual answer or work on an answer that people would point to?

pgodzin 2y ago
https://transitcosts.com/ https://transitcosts.com/

twright 2y ago

This seems like a plug for a book than anything with a definitive answer. The pull quote near the end of the article implies that the rest of the world has simply caught up and is pressing forward while the US has simply stopped. I was in Florence not long ago and they are building out a very impressive light-rail network [1]. Twenty years ago a similarly ambitious network was planned in Cincinnati, OH and it was voted down 2-1 [2]. [1] https://en.comune.fi.it/administration/tramway/system.html https://en.comune.fi.it/administration/tramway/system.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroMoves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroMoves

robwwilliams 2y ago
Agree, interesting question that this article does not even begin to answer. Frustrating.
onecommentman 2y ago
The tone of the article is one of advocacy rather than reasoned analysis, as I assume is the tone of the book. That is not what public transit needs at this point in the US. Many urban transportation types and city planners in general give off a culty, can-I-tell-you-about-my-Lord-and-Savior-Mass-Transit vibe that is very off-putting to many, if not most Americans. Their writings gloss over the practical issues of American weather, last-mile, families with children, lugging home shopping, aging…along with deprecating any personal valuations of saving time, spontaneity, avoiding unpleasant interactions, carrying your large purchases with you…. You ignore my real world, lived experience in your screeds, I ignore you. And so they shout into the void.

sb057 2y ago

Because the people who would use public transit are not politically relevant.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
That's begging the question isn't it? In places with quality transit, even the creme de la creme are riding it.
- onecommentman 2y ago
  Not the *real crème de la crème”, unless it is a photo op. Not regularly, and they have access to limos whenever the occasion calls for it. Their staff handles the logistics and staff quite often use automobiles. But an occasional trip to Lincoln Center, sure. Even shopping on 5th Avenue, though the packages will be delivered later by an auto or van or whatever vehicles those sorts of people use.
  - Jensson 2y ago
    New York doesn't have good public transit, he was talking about other countries where the top do use public transit since it is clean, comfortable and safe.
  - bmicraft 2y ago
    Or president is regularly seen riding the tram by the general public
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    I mean, it depends who you’re talking about, but there are plenty of cities where the upper-middle-class use the public transport.

hnburnsy 2y ago

>These are the statistics underlying the reality that in San Francisco; Washington, D.C.; Boston; Atlanta; and many other major cities in the U.S., not a single mile of rail transit is currently under construction. Here are some of the current U.S. cities with rail projects under construction: Los Angeles, California - Extensions to the existing light rail network Denver, Colorado - Commuter rail lines San Diego, California - New light rail extensions Seattle, Washington - Ongoing Commuter rail lines Minneapolis, Minnesota - Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) project

lurking_swe 2y ago
can add Honolulu to the list
latchkey 2y ago
As much as I like to see it happening, San Diego is too spread out geographically to make use of their rail projects effectively, unless you're really well situated on the lines. That said, it makes for a great way to explore the city for a day.

giantg2 2y ago

The heart of the problem is that cars became popular for the majority of the people due to freedom and convenience, causing most of the infrastructure to focus on them. The existing public transit saw worse service and problems such as crime or cleanliness. New projects become more difficult and costly to build, and were hijacked for political causes. Willingness to fund even the existing projects fell. Nobody wants to ride public transit that is unreliable/late, has limited service times/areas, prone to strikes, dirty or unsafe, etc. It's easier and/or better to own a car or Uber in most areas. It's not really going to improve since we're stuck in a catch-22.

infotainment 2y ago
It's not just market forces though; most municipalities in the US legally mandate a focus on cars. For example, most downtown areas in the US are pre-existing, as they're largely illegal to build today due to mandatory off-street parking minimums among other onerous requirements.
- giantg2 2y ago
  Those mandates are due to the market forces. Go ahead and build a building without parking. Tenants or customers are going to bring their cars anyways and try to find street parking, or they'll go somewhere else. If you make it inconvenient for car and the other option is inconvenient public transit, then people will just look for alternative housing or stores that are more convenient.
  - infotainment 2y ago
    Why not just let market forces handle that then? If no one is going to go to my shop with no parking, that's fine. Let it get built, and then let it die due to lack of business. No need for any heavy-handed mandates.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      Parking is an externality. The surrounding businesses and residents get pissed when the new development takes "their" spots.

meroes 2y ago

I was incredibly lucky the smallish town (40k pop) I went to college in had some remarkably good transportation I had never seen before. There was a bus that cost $.50 per ride circa 2010 and went to about a dozen locations within 20 miles, two different shopping centers (their main attractions being Walmarts but still), the university, the community college, several neighborhoods, and downtown locations, among a few others. Second there was a rental car option through the university where anyone with a drivers license and and a debit or credit card could use it (eg you didn’t have to be 25 or have a credit card). You could reserve time slots in advance online, and it was only $5 and hour or so. There were multiple cars. The bus eventually went up to $1 per ride but I still think about these two options and wish my town had something like it. With a few small improvements I don’t see why we can’t reasonably subsidize these relatively cheap options in most towns/small cities. The rental car one would be harder, but even the bus would suffice. It notably didn’t stop at any grocery stores, only Walmarts so that’s another thing to improve. But I’d give up my car in a second for that bus back home. I’m not even sure if this is still their active website http://0060325.netsolhost.com/about.htm http://0060325.netsolhost.com/about.htm but it gives you a picture of what I’m talking about. There’s either another service or a replacement that is $2.00 instead of $1.00 that goes by DCT from what I can tell. I don’t live there anymore so hard to know the current setup. I’m really underselling how good that bus was/is.

malloryerik 2y ago

But also, why is it hard, expensive, and slow for the U.S. to build anything public?

janalsncm 2y ago

My question is, who is constructing these rail systems in each of the countries? My understanding was that Chinese companies had built a lot of the biggest subway systems in various cities from Kiev to Singapore. For political reasons that would be untenable in the US. Therefore we have to pay full price to build a thing we’re not good at building and don’t have the ramped up supply chains to support. If there’s only one company left that builds a component you need, guess what? You pay whatever they ask.

bmicraft 2y ago
Most European cities don't have any Chinese involvement.
rsynnott 2y ago
> My understanding was that Chinese companies had built a lot of the biggest subway systems in various cities from Kiev to Singapore. From Kyiv to Singapore, sure, but not far west of Kyiv. I’m not aware of _any_ Chinese transport project in Western Europe?
- fragmede 2y ago
  The MTR Corporation out of Hong Kong runs trains for Stockholm, Sweden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation?wprov=sfti1#Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR_Corporation?wprov=sfti1#Sw...
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    I mean, that’s a public multinational which runs a rail system. You were originally talking about _building_ them.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      different person

codeangler 2y ago

Context: this is a copy I posted r/boulder some years ago to people's wish for ( long promised) rail to Denver. I commuted to Denver daily from Boulder, CO for three years and never drove during that time. My shortlist of why I only want bus service to Boulder County ( for reference I typically pick up the bus at Table Mesa). I only moved to Boulder in 2009 so I know I haven't carried as much tax burden as some people who "dream of light rail to Denver" but I'm very very happy with the FlatIron Flyers. 1. Buses can adapt to weather conditions - Frequently coworkers training up from the tech center were 10x more likely to have issues with trains when the weather was icy, during the three years that I compiled this list of why I prefer buses. 2.Buses can adapt to other buses on the same route failing - the RTD train infrastructure has very few places that light rail can pass one another so it doesn't matter if your train is working if the one ahead of your fails 3. Buses do not have routes altered/closed for maintenance - when I would take the light rail to the company's Parker office or visiting friends it was surprising to have to get off and catch a bus around a section of rail under repair. - I acknowledge that sometimes specific stops can be closed or moved but rarely is a whole section down and require alternate solutions (i.e. deboarding the train to board a bus to deboard on the other side of maintenance and board a new train) 4. Buses have express options. - see the comment above regarding the few places that RTD rails can pass other trains - note when the W line opened the express bus routes were removed, I think that was also true with another line but I can't remember. My favorite part of this is the coworkers I know who used that route started driving because the train was significantly longer commute times. 5. Buses typically have storage for up to six bikes per vehicle and don't block entries of others - as an avid bike-the-final-mile commuter having storage for bikes that don't hinder other passengers boarding or exiting is nice (if you want to complain that it sometimes means staying at a few stops longer go ahead) 6. Buses Can turn over quicker at end of the line - waiting for the E Line to swap directions at union station was comically slow when compared to catching the FF2 that just dropped off people and pulled around to pick up. 7. Buses can reroute around accidents that happen. - E line and other northbound rail had to stop because of a car accident on the I-25 on the other side of a jersey wall where someone died. But the law says all traffic must be stopped from crossing an area of a certain diameter from the accident scene. So the next train had to stop. No place for passengers to deboard in the middle of the railway and blocked trains behind it. - See comment above where other trains would be impacted as well 8. IMO, The payment and boarding method is a better User experience on the bus. - this was more true before the mobile app could hold an annual pass 9. I'm sure I could come up with more reasons. - oh, I'd rather take the AB to the airport than the A-train (sheesh that is a long train ride for such a short distance) - oh, someone just mentioned the "rich people lane" yes, the bus uses the HOV lane! How great. 10. Air circulation is better inter city buses When my office opens I'll return to bike/bus commuting. It is a bummer that during covid the express buses have stopped but understandable. The few times that I have bused in during 2020 the added time of FF1 was noticeable. Typically bike/express-bus takes me 50minutes house door to office door

iJohnDoe 2y ago

My answer without reading the article. It’s hard in the US because of politics, corruption, favors, contracts for the purpose to burn money, transit other than cars is only for poor people (a US thing), poor people aren’t a priority, reputation for working on transit for people won’t get you reelected by your rich donors and constituents. It’s kind of a shame because whenever Americans get back from Europe they rave about being able to take the train everywhere.

Ologn 2y ago

I lived in New York City until 2020. According to the 2010 census, the majority of households in New York City do not own a car. I got around fine via buses, subway and railroads. If need be I could take a taxi. The subway runs all night, all over the city, as do buses. The city even improved its transit - the subway now goes to the Javits Center. The Long Island Railroad now goes to Grand Central Station. I was in San Francisco once and the latest Caltrain going from Sunnyvale to San Francisco was before 11:30PM, and the latest Caltrain going from San Francisco to Sunnyvale was three minutes after midnight. In New York PATH trains, LIRR trains, Metro North trains, New Jersey transit trains all leave well past that.

AlbertCory 2y ago

This seems to come up once a month or so on HN. Here is a non-ideological take, which I suppose means everyone will hate it because it doesn't echo their pet theory: The US's basic problem with large building projects nowadays is federalism. There are so many different jurisdictions that opponents can always find some court or legislative body that they can exploit to slow down or stop the project. Everything else flows from that. Lawsuits? Too many courts. Legislative opposition? Too many governmental units. Even if the public as a whole supports it, some jurisdictions will not. Administrative permit hearings, which go on endlessly? Too many governmental units. Yes, things used to work better in the US, but things change and all systems decay.

xeromal 2y ago
Too many fingers in the pot. I like it

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

emsign 2y ago

The US is a big country.

xeromal 2y ago
Big and empty in a lot of places
jjcm 2y ago
Australia around the same size, but has excellent public transportation (relative to the US).
- sien 2y ago
  Australian transport is still dominated by cars though. https://chartingtransport.com/category/australian-cities/ https://chartingtransport.com/category/australian-cities/ At least 80% of surface passenger kilometers are in cars.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  Most of austrailias population is concentrated around a few areas. The us population is very spread out.

ackbar03 2y ago

The new York metro has pretty much become a prop location for tiktokers. They might as well make it an official partnership at this point and get some of their fare revenue back

rayval 2y ago

The article mentions how global cities outside the US are building out urban rail systems. Here's some more detail about China, which has the two largest transit systems in the world: Shanghai and Beijing. In 1993, Shanghai had one line running 2.7 miles with 4 stations. Less than 30 years later, the system had 15 lines, 500 miles of track, and 500 stations. [1] And in that same time frame, the Beijing subway system was expanded, from 2 lines in 2002 to 27 lines and 500 miles of track, with 13 million riders per day in 2022. [2] Also in that time, 30 other cities in China got subway systems as well.[3] In 1993, China's per-capita GDP was $537. By comparison, per-capita GDP in the US was 50 times larger (about $23k). Since then, the gap has narrowed. US per-capita GDP is now 5x of China (66k vs 12k). China demonstrates that, even with small GDP, if you prioritize the needs of the people over entrenched commercial interests, it can be done. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Shanghai_Metro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Shanghai_Metro [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Subway [3] https://qz.com/1010911/a-beautiful-data-animation-shows-the-unprecedented-speed-of-development-of-chinas-rail-system https://qz.com/1010911/a-beautiful-data-animation-shows-the-...

shiroiushi 2y ago
In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. And their all-suburban cities aren't dense enough to make it work economically or practically anyway: everything is just too far apart. Finally, the largest transit system in the world isn't in China, it's in Tokyo, Japan (though to be fair, it isn't really a single system since it's run by many different companies).
- Kbelicius 2y ago
  > In the US, if you prioritize the wants of the people, you'll just get wider roads. The people there don't want better public transit; you can see this every time these discussions come up on HN and Americans here respond about how much they hate riding on public transit or walking anywhere. Everybody wants a car because public transit sucks. Do you think that those people would still want a car if they lived somewhere with a good public transit and walkability?

thefz 2y ago

When you treat everything as a product that must be profited off, maximizing gain and minimizing the expense, that's what you get. Public transit does not need to turn a profit, it's a public service. It must provide a service. It is already paid off. "... but muh capitalism brought me the iPhone!" Yeah, what about being able to walk your fucking neighborhood though?

nathanaldensr 2y ago

Has the author of this article ever driven across the US? It takes days and days. The US is huge; it makes absolutely no sense to build mass transit connecting that many places where people live when it's so uneconomical. The US isn't China; the government can't just decree that something happen.

Jensson 2y ago
The states along the coasts aren't huge (they are roughly like large European countries) and there isn't good public transit there either compared to the rest of the first world, and that is where most people live.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  No one is really talking about connecting tiny places really faraway from each other. But cities in 1-6 hours drive of each other and sensible locations inside them clearly make very much sense to connect with public transit.
  - onecommentman 2y ago
    Unless almost everyone who wants to travel already owns a car which they and their family can quickly, safely and directly drive (with reasonable luggage) to the very doorstep of any given 1-6 hour destination. Which is the case in the US. Will be even more the case if cheap Chinese electric cars ever hit the shores. Makes very much less sense then.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      San Francisco to LA is about a seven hour drive. It’s about 90 minutes flight, plus getting to the airport and getting through security in the airport and all the general airport-induced slowness. Given a top-quality conventional high-speed line (300km/h) it would be two hours (so in practice faster than the flight).
shiroiushi 2y ago

Gud 2y ago

Politics. You have a leadership and public hostile to public transport, simple as that. I have lived in some cities where things are not like this. Where public transportation is amazing and getting better by the year. It’s a shame every time I read people ignorant how a modern city can function with a pedestrian/bicycle/tram/bus/train. Where it’s quiet and calm. But how do you convince people who have only seen the insides of cars that public transportation can be superior?

normalaccess 2y ago

America is HUGE... And all of the big cities seem unable to herd their own cats. People often forget that the USA is really 50 small countries wearing a trench coat. Just look the maps linked below. The EU has all its people piled up close where as the US has HUGE tracts of low population areas. That's why you'll never see a high speed coast to coast rail system here. logistically it's just not possible (at least not on the west coast). I live in one of the unpopulated areas and by car it takes over an hour of continuous travel at 70 MPH (115 KPH) to get to a smallish big city. There's just too much empty space. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/geo/population-distribution-2020.html https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2021/geo/popul... https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/fragmentation-pressure-and-population-density https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/fragmentatio... I could see local areas like California or New York getting some high speed rail but even then, how many people would use it and where would they be going?

conor- 2y ago
I've seen a lot of suggestions that there should at least be a high speed rail corridor from Chicago to NYC and one from SF to LA because those are 2 of the most highly trafficked domestic flight paths. The fact there isn't really high speed rail connections across large cities in the Midwest is kind of silly considering there isn't much terrain to contend with like there is on the coasts. Even the 1 new route Amtrak introduced from Chicago to Minneapolis has seen pretty high demand.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  High speed rail from SF to LA is more than a suggestion, it's an active megaproject which broke ground nine years ago: https://hsr.ca.gov/ https://hsr.ca.gov/
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    Yeah. I'm not sure that it will be rideable from SF to LA in my lifetime (even with generous values of "SF" and "LA"). So, yeah, they're working on it... at a glacial pace. And they haven't even gotten to the hard parts yet.