For all the people who are gonna comment on this in anger, I KNOW ABOUT THE WAR. I KNOW IT'S HAPPENING. BUT I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME AND PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM STARTING IT JUST SO THAT SOME PEOPLE ON REDDIT WON'T COMPLAIN IN MY COMMENTS

Your logic is literally "Russian government is bad so Russians should not be allowed to post about Russia"

Just because I make posts about Moscow doesn't mean I support the government. It's the opposite, I'm against them.

This is a pretty unorthodox opinion, but I don't think bikes are that important to cities if the public transportation is really good. If everyone lives within a short walk of good public transport, there really is no need for a bike. You can get anywhere by your feet or by transit.

Another thing is that if you have a lot of bikes, that can lead to a lot of the same problems as a lot of cars. Yes, it's on a smaller scale, but it's still the same problems. For example, in Amsterdam, bike traffic jams are common. Also in Amsterdam, you have to lock your bike at dedicated bike parking garages. That takes away from one of the biggest advantages of bicycles, which is that you get to park right in front of your destination.

A trend I've noticed worldwide is that the cities with more sub par transit have a ton of bike users. For example, Amsterdam is lacking in public transit compared to its peers (mostly due to riots while building the first metro), and Münster is the largest city in Germany without an U-Bahn. Both of these cities are very famous for the amount of bicycle users. Meanwhile, Paris, London, and Tokyo all have amazing public transportation, but leave a lot to be desired in terms of bike infrastructure (especially the latter two).

And my last note is just personal preference, but I do not like biking. I live in a very hilly area and going up hills is a pain in the ass. I also cannot stand biking in the rain because I will end up looking like a swamp monster. I just don't find it convenient. So, take everything I said with a grain of salt. Like I said, this is a very unorthodox opinion.

Edit: grammar

Edit: ok. I want to get clear: I'm not hating on bikes or bike infrastructure or people who ride bikes. My brain point is that bikes are not the silver bullet that many people think they are.

For a higher quality image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Aviv_Metro

I've seen network expansions mentioned from all over the world on here but I recently stumbled across this happening in Tel Aviv in Israel. When I was last in Israel, I got to ride the Red Line but was amazed to see all the construction happening across the city. Being from the US, I could never imagine an entire metro/light rail network being built from scratch.

More than 18,000 people are already working on the construction of this project. This is planned for completion by the end of 2028.

The californian high speed rail service is extremely expensive, like 130 billion dollars. So why are brightline better?

You know who I'm talking about, and if you are one of them you know who you are: people that have a complete meltdown because someone in this sub suggested replacing fares with 100% public funding. Even if there was a point to be made against it (which there isn't really), getting this irrationally angry and crashing out over it is just absurd. There's obviously something about this proposal in particular that makes these people react with more hostility than any other proposal, bad or not. Y'all know what that is and it's not anything related to transit...

A small progressive tax increase is more than enough to make up the lost fare revenue. For the majority of people that comes out to a ~1-2% increase in income tax to cover it, give or take depending on income. Supporters of free fares make it explicitly clear that they support this and oppose service cuts, yet opponents continue to insist that supporters of free fares want service cuts which is a dishonest way of avoiding having to come up with a good faith response.

If your system is shitty that's not because of fares free or not, it's because there's a lack of public investment. Attributing the problem to fares is to avoid addressing that problem.

There is no difference between paying the fare at the gate and the fare coming out of your taxes instead except that paying for enforcement is not needed with the latter. If you already support taxes funding transit, it's perfectly rational to support replacing fares with a tax increase.

So it's obvious that the uniquely high level of anger illicited by people who support free fares from opponents is not related to the quality of transit itself. I really don't care if I get downvoted and receive the wrath for calling this out it needed to be said.

Edit: a loooot of people feel called out. Good, be better and stop attributing societies' problems to not beating up the poor hard enough. Your comment histories are exactly as hateful as I expected

We don’t have to pay for a Fire Card and have to tap it each time to summon the fire department, nor do we tip them when they’ve put the fire out. Libraries are free to enter and use—yes, there is a library card but that’s free to get and it doesn’t connect to a library wallet or cost anything to check an item out or attend a story time. I don’t pay $2.90 just to walk into a park, nor do I pay an additional quarter to look at a duck (like Ron Swanson wanted on Parks & Recreation).

So why are you so against taxes paying for transit?

EDIT: Get fucked. I’ll jump off the Walkway Over the Hudson like I wanted to last month and you can bitch about the poor all you fucking want. I’ll see you in hell.

Blaze Pizza

Someone told me here that Washington has a law that prohibits retail on transit stations. Vancouver is the exact opposite. They encourage it to an amazing degree. There are tall (as much as 20 floors ) of retail apartments space . The stations are clean and full of people constantly.

Seattle’s are devoid of people. It makes you nervous.

Not only do I love trains, but I also find LA-SF to be the most important corridor for a rail project, and a high speed rail project at that (not just Acela). I've spent years riding the Acela back and forth between DC and NY, and California is ripe for its own version. In fact California has always been a symbol for the future where new ideas are tested and then sold to the rest of the nation. It is a place where everyone looks to for the future.

But that also means every failure (perceived or otherwise) is treated as a bad omen that will reverberate across the country.

I used to live in California and it's quite literally a straight line up and down the coast, perfect for a single route. I can't think of any state that is anymore geographically linear than California is, and frankly it needs this train to happen.

Delusions won't get it done, in fact delusions will be what forever kills the project. I've watch all the videos of transit YouTubers defending the line, pointing to actual construction work and a well thought out pathway through the central value.

None of that matters. Because people see it as a fucking scam and it's not just misinformation and bots. Just because Trump and Elon think it's a money laundering operation doesn't mean we (you) have to blindly praise it.

Blind praise and associating future transit dreams with the CHSR is sucking the life out of future projects. People don't need to be talked downed to and gaslit about what is obviously happening.

Just because the project is great conceptually doesn't mean pouring endless dollars into what is a humiliation not just for the authorities, but the entire state government will somehow save it. God forbid they actually finish it, no one will want to go through this ordeal themselves.

This is why California is seen as corrupt. And yeah the wall to wall support on Reddit might make it seem like there are only a few naysayers, yet the reputation is absolutely toxic. Hell I think this project is a microcosm of everything people think of about "west coast corruption" and don't think for a second this hasn't killed aspirations for left-wing policies nationwide.

You can point to Asia and Europe as much as you want, but that is not what Americans see when talking about high speed rail. No significant number of people are actually against more train lines linking together urban regions.

But pointing to Japan and suggesting Americans are stupid isn't going to win you any allies. Americans don't look to Japan when talking about what can and can't be done, they look to California.

And all they see is graft, embezzlement, and big money ripping tax payers off with nothing to show for it. I have no idea how much of the funds were wasted on paying consultants rather than actual engineers. I have no idea how the costs ballooned by over a $100 billion. Nor do I have any insight as to why the thing has been delayed into the next decade, and most likely further.

You won the votes, and now you spit in the face of voters. I'm sure those of you more informed about the project than me can formulate a million excuses, and then explain why it's worth going on with.

But here is what you people miss, the project has already failed. It failed because it lost the people. Because you lost the casual observer, you lost the layman.

No amount of excuses can save this. And the sunk cost fallacy of doubling down because the project already started won't save you either. This is dead, and pumping it with more cash will only tell everyone else this is where your promises lead.

And no one is going to listen to you ever again.

Transit is more expensive externalities included

The 2015 cost of Transit is roughly 71 cents per passenger mile averaged - https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/Transit%20Profiles%202015%20-%20Top%2050%20Agencies%20with%20Summary.pdf

Buses are 1.08 dollars per passenger mile, Heavy Rail is 49 cents per passenger mile, commuter rail is 50 cents per passenger mile, hybrid rail is 93 cents per passenger mile, bus Rapid Transit is 80 cents per passenger mile, commuter buses are 62 cents per passenger mile, and light rail is 77 cents per passenger mile.

Amtrak in 2019 spent 3.5 billion dollars to move 6.4 billion passenger miles. Or roughly 54 cents per passenger mile. Amtrak is not technically transit, but it's similar.

https://www.enotrans.org/article/amtrak-concedes-perpetual-1-billion-year-operating-losses/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/185800/us-passenger-miles-by-intercity-or-amtrak-since-1990/

A 2006 study puts the cost of automobile externalities at roughly 8.8 cents per vehicle mile. Considering externalities for cars and not transit is not really fair because transit has externalities too, but there no studies or data calculating it. Study Here: https://media.rff.org/archive/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-06-26.pdf

I use this to adjust for inflation https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

So Roughly 13 cents per vehicle mile in externalities.

If we assume that roads are 100 percent subsidized (not really true, some per capita vehicle expenditures go to roads, but they are funded in a weird sort of way), they cost roughly 621 dollars for every 10,000 vehicle miles, which is roughly 0.06 cents per vehicle mile - https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures

The Average American Spends 4,800 dollars on vehicle related expenditures.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/748911/us-average-per-capita-vehicle-spending-by-category/

The Average American travels 14,263 vehicle miles

https://www.thezebra.com/resources/driving/average-miles-driven-per-year/

This is roughly 34 cents per vehicle mile.

Per vehicle mile driving is roughly 53 cents per vehicle mile, externalities included and assuming a 100 percent road subsidy and assuming no externalities for transit.

The Average American car has an occupancy 1.5 persons per vehicle

https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/mobility/personal-transportation-factsheet

The unsubsidized cost of driving is roughly 35 cents per passenger mile.

By comparison Transit in Japan is almost universally profitable from fares. The Tokyo Monorail, for example, charges 500 yen for its highest fare over the full distance of train, which is roughly 3.85 over a distance of 11.1 miles, which is roughly 35 cents per passenger mile, and it does this while making a profit. The Monorail has lower fares available as well.

https://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_monorail005.htm

https://www.tokyo-monorail.co.jp/english/guidance/train_info.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Monorail

By comparison New York City, where Transit is heavily utilized, spends 50 cents per passenger mile on the subway, while charging 35 cents per passenger mile. By comparison the London Underground costs 43 cents per passenger mile to run.

https://twitter.com/chittimarco/status/1431333517250764809

It's not simply a problem of ridership, even in New York where ridership is high, the operating costs are inflated relative to other parts of the world.

New York to Paterson Jitney fares cost roughly 6 dollars over 22 miles of distance, which is roughly 27 cents per passenger mile, while making a profit. https://www.jerseyjitneys.info/?page_id=11

Bus operating costs are largely inflated by inefficient union work rules and other inefficiencies

"Existing evidence suggests that transit contracting can provide services at costs 10 to 50 percent below public agency cost levels"

https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1108/1108-001.pdf

The NYC subway and other NY trains have inflated operating costs due to practices like having conductors. NY also spends 4 - 5 times as much on track maintenance as Paris due to Union work rules.

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2015/07/26/why-labor-efficiency-is-important/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/11/15949284/new-york-subway-crisis

Caltrain maintains not only conductors, but the position of "assistant" conductors

https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-cost-of-conductors.html

Amtrak (While not technically transit), uses roughly 45 employees per Long Distance train and 5 per short distance train, neither of which is a particularly great

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/position-papers/white-paper-amtrak-long-distance-financial-performance.pdf

According to Wendell Cox, both transit and Amtrak have seen a 50% or more decline in per worker productivity compared to private sector predecessors.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-tr&cprod-1997.htm

I would emphasize this is not an argument against transit itself, but that the economics of American transit is so piss poor that driving is more cost effective externalities included and assuming a 100 percent road subsidy. American Transit has a cost effectiveness problem. Transit in America is largely an exercise in value destruction.

This is in response to a post I just saw, but realistically, I see this stance parroted all the time. Almost every adjacent sub talking about transit, urbanism, or cities keeps glazing Seattle as if it's really good, when in reality it's remarkably average at best, and extremely flawed in certain areas. What really helps support Seattle is solid urban form, but the actual public transit experience is average to even mediocre in certain areas. I'm convinced that most people have never even set foot in Seattle, or at best visited one or two tourist areas, the real ability to reliably use public transit in Seattle as daily driver to get to work, run errands, etc. isn't there yet outside of very select areas.

This post will highlight the clearly weak aspects because most of the things that work well are already known.

First, to be clear, the Seattle "transit" is primarily a bunch of bus ridership, yes, the light rail ridership is growing, but it does not serve as a real urban mobility mechanism, most trips by transit are going to require the bus. The neighborhoods with the highest density of foot traffic during during the weekdays and residential population like Belltown/Denny/SLU are very poorly served by rail. Many of the big tech offices like Google's are over a mile away from any of the rail stations. (I'm aware of the Ballard link extension, but that's going to take a decade and it's still going to slash one of the two stations serving this area even though this area would absolutely support the necessity).

Next, the rail system itself isn't particularly fast. A car trip from city center to the airport takes about 20 to 25 minutes, the light rail will take pretty much an hour because of the slower speeds and wait times. A Seattle to Eastside trip will also take close to an hour by rail vs 25 minutes by driving. And this is ignoring the frequent delays and slowdowns for other cars on the rail.

Moving on, bus system is remarkably poor during peak hours. The buses barely operate on time during off-hours like a random 2pm afternoon on a weekend. During real peak usage periods that would matter the most like getting home from the office at 5pm on a Tuesday, buses can be 10 to 15 minutes late, which completely defeats the purpose for short bus rides of 1 to 2 miles. Your choice is wait 10 minutes, pay $3 to take a 20 minute bus ride, or you could walk 30 minutes for your trip that takes just over a 1 mile, it's not great.

A big reason for this is that the bus stops themselves are poorly spaced, there are areas in Seattle where a bus will stop on back to back blocks, which leads to the buses being incredibly slow. A 10 minute trip by driving from city center to North Seattle can take half an hour on a bus because it has unnecessarily has 20 stops for an extremely short trip. And this is ignoring the additional walking and wait time to get to and from the stops.

In addition, the actual fare enforcement is terrible. Many people simply do not pay when they get on the bus or light rail, and I'm not talking about underprivileged people scraping by, these are clearly normal to well-off people that clearly can afford to pay and simply choose not to. The buses especially are conducive to this since many are extremely long and have boarding doors behind the driver, so there's no scrutiny.

And so, this all culminates to extremely poor safety on the buses, when no one is paying fares or following rules, you get tons of dangerous or unstable individuals on board.

In general, Seattle's urban form is what helps it a lot, the actual city of Seattle isn't large, block sizes make sense. The city has done a decent job at building mixed used residential with commercial. For example, the waterfront reclamation project was fantastic, so it doesn't feel like you're in an urban hellscape. But the actual ability to get around between neighborhoods by public transit is incredibly poor. Much of Seattle's transit quality has to do with the ability to walk around with your two legs.

In conclusion, Seattle's transit is completely average at best. Yes, the new 2 line across the lake is a great addition and important infrastructure. But the people talking about how "great" it is really have no idea what they're talking about.

so the LA D-Line expansion looks super cool and the future developments in LA transit around that area are extremely exciting, but at the same time, I am also reminded that I really hate LA's station naming. In succession, you have:

Wilshire/Vermont, Wilshire/Normandie, Wilshire/Western, Wilshire/La Brea, Wilshire/Fairfax, Wilshire/La Cienega

I am fine with intersection-name stops on trams and buses. I am less fine, but mostly at peace with them on very old systems where lines were historically known by the street they ran under/over (e.g. NYC/Chicago). Putting them on a heavy rail system built in the 90s is inexplicable and I do not understand why LA continues to do this. Just to take Wilshire/Vermont - this makes six stations with "Wilshire" in the name, and six stations with "Vermont" in the name.

this (and some of the weirder aspects of US transit station naming) did get me to thinking what I think the most important priorities in station naming should be. off the top of my head, mine are -

a) Uniqueness - station names should not repeat, ever. i am dying on this hill. Yes, this means I want to rename like 50 MTA subway stops. Sorry. I also think an effort should be made, within reason, to not repeat specific words in station names (apart from generic ones like "Road" or "Park", though the Shanghai metro having like 200 stops with "Road" in the name is very funny)

b) Concise - Short names aren't just good on maps, they make it easier to talk about a stop. Taking LA as an example - is there any convention on what people call "Grand Avenue Arts/Bunker Hill", because I seriously doubt locals use that entire name. If people just say "Take the train to Bunker Hill", just name the stop "Bunker Hill"!

c) Descriptive - This is actually the least important criterion for me. Stations should at least be named in a non-confusing way (e.g. it should probably not be named after a town or neighborhood like two miles from the station), but as far as I'm concerned it's fine to give your stations arbitrary names (e.g. Metro Center) as long as they're unique and concise. Go ahead and be like one of those ex-Soviet systems where half the stations are named after someone or is named like "December 1918", as long as it's unique.

but i dunno. maybe some people like intersection-based naming, I just tend to think it's a weird aspect of old US systems that LA decided to copy for some reason.

Had a dream that oregon trimet had ran this train line called TED which was basically just modified class 91 intercity’s, and decided to make an image of it. Took a while but its finished.

this was made with some ai (please do not hate, i spent two hours on procreate to make this realistic) and some edit on procreate

man this looks freaking cursed

He has a recent video out about Taipei which is a city I currently live in, and he himself lived in the past.

You can see he is positive about the good things alongside what has improved since he lived there. But he also calls out the problems, despite that he also points out how things could change for the better which some small changes. It’s nonsense that some people call him defeatist when he actually does offer solutions for how cities can change for the better.

Not related to this video but I also remember his video on how Paris has become more bicycle friendly in a short space of time, he makes it clear that while not perfect, many other cities could make big improvements by following similar principles. My own hometown of Dublin being one of them.

As for the sarcastic tone? It’s funny and entertaining, he’s a YouTuber after all, and needs to be entertaining to get views.

*edit: I wish people would stop staying "oh I'm too poor to move" or something like that. It's more deafeatist than saying certain countries or cities are beyond saving. Obviously some people have families or other commitments that makes moving impossible, but I moved overseas when I was in my early 20s, so did many of my friends and non of us were rich. Most people I know emmigrated to make a better life for themselves. The world is a book and your country is just the first page, I'd encourage anyone who isn't satisfied in their current country to take a risk and trying living somewhere new!

https://youtu.be/ZdDYVjDwgwA?si=KYgkOhjL9xH35YMV

(CTrain)