[ExI] mass transit again

[Damien Sullivan]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 05:20:11PM -0800, Damien Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:56:57PM -0800, spike wrote:
> 
> > Ja and I thought of something else too.  It could be that one particular
> > route is bad for having few riders.  It goes to that big industrial park
> 
> There's also the possibility that San Jose has not done public transit
> well.  This does not cancel out the many other places, some of them even
> American, that have done it well.

There's also possibilities that it picks up riders further along its
route, and you're just seeing it at an endpoint.  And that the planners
are thinking long term: no riders yet, but as the system grow...


As for public transit in general, a big question is what is it for?  In
the US, it's commonly a second or even third class option, essentially
charity for those who can't drive: too young, old, sick, otherwise
incapable of driving, or too poor to afford a car.  Like much of the
American safety net, it's barely adequate at best.  A suburban bus may
run once an hour and not at all after 6 or 8pm, figuring retirees can
wait and poor people should go live somewhere else.

This is way different from a system designed to be more efficient in
space, energy, and labor than cars, and to free as many people as
possible from the need to drive.  Works better with denser living, of
course, and with making public transit higher priority than driving
convenience.  Looks like bus and rail lines every half-mile or less,
running every 5 minutes or less, running from 5am to 1am, or even 24
hours (though usually not at the highest frequency late at night.)  Done
really well, the buses and street rail have their own lanes and signal
priority, so can move faster than cars in traffic, as does metro.

This isn't a pipe dream, but exists in various forms in various cities.
Smaller cities might just have buses running every 10 minutes, not as
good but still decent.

-xx- Damien X-)