"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
16 May 2008Low ridersYou want people to take public transit? Improve public transit, says Ezra Klein:
There's this tendency to ascribe Americans' low use of public transit to some sort of cultural preference, as if it's been a choice. But in many cases, it's simply been a case of shitty, or inadequate, public transit options. If Irvine had had a real system of subways or light rail, I would've much preferred taking that to the Spectrum than having my parents drop me off. But I didn't have the option. When I lived in LA, I would've done ANYTHING to avoid the freeways. People who move to DC or New York or Toronto don't start taking subways because they adopt a new culture on day two. It's because they suddenly have the option to take subways.
And it's because those subways go to places they want to go, at a more-or-less reasonable price. (Parking in DC or New York or Toronto is expensive enough to make the train look a whole lot better.) Of course, as James Joyner notes, the options used to be better in a lot of places:
One of the tragedies of the history of mass transit isn't just the lack of support it's received throughout most of the country, but also the fact that many viable, working, well-used systems of mass transit were actually systematically dismantled in the middle of the 20th century. I don't buy into the GM conspiracy theory, but there were certainly opportunities for governments to step in and preserve the systems — heck, just allotting public right-of-way instead of forcing transit companies to own their own might have saved some of them.
The one time in my life when I rode public transit regularly was when I was a kid in Charleston. The bus line back then was owned by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company. The route, it appears, hasn't changed much from the 1960s. And fortunately for me, it was a single route: no changes or transfers, just a long ride followed by a long walk. Today in Oklahoma City, there's no conceivable combination of transit options, the buses we have or the trains we're allegedly going to get, that will get me from home to work or back again without at least one transfer. On the plus side, the walking distance to the present bus route is not too daunting. Posted at 12:16 PM to DyssynergyIn San Antonio the VIA bus (which is exactly like our Masstrans bus) runs all over town 24 hours a day 7 days a week :) And therefore being so much more convenient it gets a lot more participation. Posted by: ms7168 at 7:14 AM on 17 May 2008Check www.advancedtransport.org Click on the opening page "OKC Metro Rail Lines, Spring, 2003" map. Lots of pertinent sound files on the opening page, too. You'll then see why "THE Mayor" and his auto- and highway lobby pals want OKC Union Station's rail yard destroyed. More evidence? www.vocallocals.net (Click on PROJECTS) Every mass transit system in the country loses money. City, state, federal subsidies, they still lose money. Some cities can't afford to regularly lose so much money. Others don't want to raise taxes to subsidize a train or bus service that will turn into a no-way-out, never ending money pit. The government cannot run a business and break even let alone stay in the black. Never been done, probably never will be. Posted by: fits at 11:06 PM on 17 May 2008 |