To make public transport more appealing, get rid of the Democrats who control the areas where it is most economically viable. I'm all for reducing congestion/parking problems in a city by sticking a big car park on the edge of town and running a shuttle from there to the central business district, but if you want people to share transport with strangers it would help if those strangers weren't the dregs of humanity.
Yea, around here we have tons of public transportation. The problem isn't the transportation. It's the people on it.
Of course that's never going to get addressed because the troublemakers are usually the same kind of people and leftists who run cities would never admit their protected classes are a problem.
Best they can do is security theater by installing cameras everywhere. Which are worthless because they don't prevent crime and since our justice system isn't interested in creating politically incorrect statistics they don't help solve them either. And they do nothing about general anti-social behavior.
Also, like any public service access to it is solely at the discretion of the government. Get the jab or lose all mobility!
Nah, they don't even want to prosecute most crime because it creates inconvenient statistics.
Edit:
For example in Germany the percentage of foreign rape suspects is now at 42%, usually Turks, Afghans and Syrians. What does the government do? They don't investigate cases, import more of the same people and hand out German passports like candy. Bam, suddenly the rapist is "German". Problem solved.
Wrong kind of crime. That kind of crime doesn't create an income source. It just creates costs. (Jailed person, legal fees, and as you said bas optics).
The crime they do want to catch is the lazy easy stuff. Speeding, bad driving, indecent exposure, antisocial behaviour, anything that can be caught on camera. Doesn't need large legal fees (open and shut cases), causes large fines. Doesn't need investigation.
public transport in my neck of the woods? literally just a bus. singular. when i was taking classes i'd have to hop 3 different buses in as many towns to get there.
Same. I like about 6 miles or so from work. There is a bus, technically, I could take. But:
There are only a handful of times a day I can get on it. Checking the schedule, I've got a pickup at 7:38, or I can wait until 10:20.
I then need to ride the bus to it's end, and switch buses.
Assuming bus 1 arrives on time (there's an 8 minute window), I can hop the other bus at 8:30, which would get me to work at 8:41. If I miss that 8 minute window, it's then 9:30 on the bus, arrival at 9:41.
Or, I can drive <15 minutes because it's only like 6 miles.
outside huge cities, public transit is just another embezzlement scheme, and much of the money is embezzled in those big cities anyways.
especially outside mega-cities, tons of taxpayer money is jumbled with rider fees, and in the end, ridership is so low that every single person could have bought a car and it still would have cost less. even in cities like miami and atlanta, the public transit is a fucking disaster. DC's public transit only survives off the lack of parking.
It'll take a lot more than $3.7B to make public transportation decent.
It's not JUST the other passengers (though they do indeed suck). It's the lousy schedules, the slow speeds (there's a comedian who has videos of himself racing NYC crosstown buses on a Big Wheel -- he wins), and the circuitous routes too.
I used public transportation in a large city for a long time. I still do but not as much as before. I've been lucky enough to avoid the lunatics and criminals, so it's mainly the service that's caused me to avoid it. It worked great when I started using it. Everything ran on time and because of that the amount of service my route got was adequate. Around 4 or 5 years ago that changed. Before you could rely on the published schedules barring inclement weather or some kind of emergency. Now it's clear that the published schedules are nothing more than suggestions and the operators show up whenever they feel like it. If you're in the main city and there's a train/bus that comes every 15 minutes it's not a big deal. But if you're traveling between the city and suburbs it becomes a problem because the buses run far less frequently in the suburbs. When they actually stuck to their schedules it wasn't a problem because you could reliably catch a bus that leaves 5-10 minutes after you get off the train. But if the operator can pull in whenever he feels like it you're gonna miss that bus most of the time and all the sudden you just added 30 or 60 (or even more) minutes to your commute. If that happens 4 out of 5 times you use public transportation you find alternatives real quick. If they want people to use public transportation they need to fix that problem as well as the lunatic/criminal problem other posters are bringing up. They also need to realize that the amount of service they would need to provide to get people in suburban or rural areas to use it will never be economically viable.
I'm all about public transit, we haven't had a car in almost 20 years. More funding for every kind of public transit is speaking my language.
But it's like everything infrastructure in life, it requires attention and maintenance. You can't just install it and then walk away - it has to be taken care of. And that's what usually goes to the dogs when budgeting happens later in the life of the project; maintenance declines, budgets are shifted elsewhere, servicing is ignored, and the rot starts to build.
I actually think that public transportation is one of the most fundamental of public works where tax money belongs.
Yeah, they are called cars. We already solved this "problem". It is even more ridiculous in the south where everyone commutes a minimum of 10 miles, average of 20. No form of centralized transport "fixes" the desire to not be on top of your neighbors.
This is where a 'touch it and die' approach needs to be adopted for the funding. The fund can be increased, but it can never be decreased or rerouted. Nothing not part of the expansion or maintenance of the transit project can be folded under its umbrella (aka Pork) and no greedy union can use it as their cudgel or personal slushfund.
Maybe not never reduced. Like if metro line makes a surplus off of its fair price maybe the tax payers don’t need to pay more for that line in the annual budget since the line is self sufficient. But the surplus should not ever be redirected. It should go into a bank account and the only reason money is ever taken out should be for repairs or to cover for a bad year.
Public transit makes no sense anywhere outside a major city and its suburbs. Who am I kidding, anyone who lives in such a place doesn't have rights or representation according to these people.
To make public transport more appealing, get rid of the Democrats who control the areas where it is most economically viable. I'm all for reducing congestion/parking problems in a city by sticking a big car park on the edge of town and running a shuttle from there to the central business district, but if you want people to share transport with strangers it would help if those strangers weren't the dregs of humanity.
Yea, around here we have tons of public transportation. The problem isn't the transportation. It's the people on it.
Of course that's never going to get addressed because the troublemakers are usually the same kind of people and leftists who run cities would never admit their protected classes are a problem.
Best they can do is security theater by installing cameras everywhere. Which are worthless because they don't prevent crime and since our justice system isn't interested in creating politically incorrect statistics they don't help solve them either. And they do nothing about general anti-social behavior.
Also, like any public service access to it is solely at the discretion of the government. Get the jab or lose all mobility!
They don't want to prevent crime because it's an income source. Crime committed can be fined and charged, preventing the crime incurs only costs.
Nah, they don't even want to prosecute most crime because it creates inconvenient statistics.
Edit: For example in Germany the percentage of foreign rape suspects is now at 42%, usually Turks, Afghans and Syrians. What does the government do? They don't investigate cases, import more of the same people and hand out German passports like candy. Bam, suddenly the rapist is "German". Problem solved.
Wrong kind of crime. That kind of crime doesn't create an income source. It just creates costs. (Jailed person, legal fees, and as you said bas optics).
The crime they do want to catch is the lazy easy stuff. Speeding, bad driving, indecent exposure, antisocial behaviour, anything that can be caught on camera. Doesn't need large legal fees (open and shut cases), causes large fines. Doesn't need investigation.
What, you've never enjoyed a ride on Atlanta's MARTA and enjoyed the fine smell of stale negro piss?
And having security in the trains and stops to making sure that you aren’t going to get stabbed and robbed by your fellow commuters
THIS SHIT DOESN'T EXIST OUTSIDE OF THE CITIES
public transport in my neck of the woods? literally just a bus. singular. when i was taking classes i'd have to hop 3 different buses in as many towns to get there.
Same. I like about 6 miles or so from work. There is a bus, technically, I could take. But:
There are only a handful of times a day I can get on it. Checking the schedule, I've got a pickup at 7:38, or I can wait until 10:20.
I then need to ride the bus to it's end, and switch buses.
Assuming bus 1 arrives on time (there's an 8 minute window), I can hop the other bus at 8:30, which would get me to work at 8:41. If I miss that 8 minute window, it's then 9:30 on the bus, arrival at 9:41.
Or, I can drive <15 minutes because it's only like 6 miles.
outside huge cities, public transit is just another embezzlement scheme, and much of the money is embezzled in those big cities anyways.
especially outside mega-cities, tons of taxpayer money is jumbled with rider fees, and in the end, ridership is so low that every single person could have bought a car and it still would have cost less. even in cities like miami and atlanta, the public transit is a fucking disaster. DC's public transit only survives off the lack of parking.
For public transport to be viable it needs to ban bums and limit blacks to no more than 2 unrelated adults per car
I might use it then
It'll take a lot more than $3.7B to make public transportation decent.
It's not JUST the other passengers (though they do indeed suck). It's the lousy schedules, the slow speeds (there's a comedian who has videos of himself racing NYC crosstown buses on a Big Wheel -- he wins), and the circuitous routes too.
Seattle tried it. They got about 2 miles. The best part is now I have tons of videos of where I lived for a few months.
The reality is, Cosby joked about it all in the '70s. Every time I am on public transport, I hear this in the back of my head come true.
God bless that man!
lmao. What the fuck do they think that's going to do?
Public transport isn't horrible because of lack of investment, it's horrible because of all the homeless drug addicts, 3rd worlders and criminal scum.
You go to Japan and public transport is wonderful. Why? Because 99% of the people on it are Japanese, that's why.
That's not to get people to trust them, that's bribes, kickbacks, and skimmer money.
I used public transportation in a large city for a long time. I still do but not as much as before. I've been lucky enough to avoid the lunatics and criminals, so it's mainly the service that's caused me to avoid it. It worked great when I started using it. Everything ran on time and because of that the amount of service my route got was adequate. Around 4 or 5 years ago that changed. Before you could rely on the published schedules barring inclement weather or some kind of emergency. Now it's clear that the published schedules are nothing more than suggestions and the operators show up whenever they feel like it. If you're in the main city and there's a train/bus that comes every 15 minutes it's not a big deal. But if you're traveling between the city and suburbs it becomes a problem because the buses run far less frequently in the suburbs. When they actually stuck to their schedules it wasn't a problem because you could reliably catch a bus that leaves 5-10 minutes after you get off the train. But if the operator can pull in whenever he feels like it you're gonna miss that bus most of the time and all the sudden you just added 30 or 60 (or even more) minutes to your commute. If that happens 4 out of 5 times you use public transportation you find alternatives real quick. If they want people to use public transportation they need to fix that problem as well as the lunatic/criminal problem other posters are bringing up. They also need to realize that the amount of service they would need to provide to get people in suburban or rural areas to use it will never be economically viable.
I'm all about public transit, we haven't had a car in almost 20 years. More funding for every kind of public transit is speaking my language.
But it's like everything infrastructure in life, it requires attention and maintenance. You can't just install it and then walk away - it has to be taken care of. And that's what usually goes to the dogs when budgeting happens later in the life of the project; maintenance declines, budgets are shifted elsewhere, servicing is ignored, and the rot starts to build.
I actually think that public transportation is one of the most fundamental of public works where tax money belongs.
Yeah, they are called cars. We already solved this "problem". It is even more ridiculous in the south where everyone commutes a minimum of 10 miles, average of 20. No form of centralized transport "fixes" the desire to not be on top of your neighbors.
This is where a 'touch it and die' approach needs to be adopted for the funding. The fund can be increased, but it can never be decreased or rerouted. Nothing not part of the expansion or maintenance of the transit project can be folded under its umbrella (aka Pork) and no greedy union can use it as their cudgel or personal slushfund.
Maybe not never reduced. Like if metro line makes a surplus off of its fair price maybe the tax payers don’t need to pay more for that line in the annual budget since the line is self sufficient. But the surplus should not ever be redirected. It should go into a bank account and the only reason money is ever taken out should be for repairs or to cover for a bad year.
That's just russia!
Public transit makes no sense anywhere outside a major city and its suburbs. Who am I kidding, anyone who lives in such a place doesn't have rights or representation according to these people.
Buses and subways aren't the future of public transit. The future is self-driving vans with the interior divided into private compartments.
Bought from pelosis friends. its all corrupt. and the buses break in a year or two.