You hate public transportation because--wait for it--you are a ...

[Chris_]

There are cities that are geographically suited for some forms of mass public transit.....Manhattan being the best example......a long narrow island, with limited points of entry and egress, with a huge poplation of commuters in a confined space.

That said, the bulk of the expensive infrastructure for the NYC subway system was completed 150 years ago, when construction, regulation, and labor were a tiny fraction of what they are today.  Even with all of the construction being complete, and with a very large "ridership", the Port Authority of NY & NJ looses billions a year keeping the system running.........it still is a dead loss for the city.  Over a decade ago, when I lived there, a subway token cost a dollar.......a study was conducted that determined that if the system were to operate at a profit, based on fares, a token would cost $10.......it would likely be twice that today......

So no, I cannot logically support public transit of any kind that is not self-supporting financially.......and that will never happen, because the people who are its most likely users, can never afford to pay for it......

doc

[DefiantSix]

There are cities that are geographically suited for some forms of mass public transit.....Manhattan being the best example......a long narrow island, with limited points of entry and egress, with a huge poplation of commuters in a confined space.

That said, the bulk of the expensive infrastructure for the NYC subway system was completed 150 years ago, when construction, regulation, and labor were a tiny fraction of what they are today.  Even with all of the construction being complete, and with a very large "ridership", the Port Authority of NY & NJ looses billions a year keeping the system running.........it still is a dead loss for the city.  Over a decade ago, when I lived there, a subway token cost a dollar.......a study was conducted that determined that if the system were to operate at a profit, based on fares, a token would cost $10.......it would likely be twice that today......

So no, I cannot logically support public transit of any kind that is not self-supporting financially.......and that will never happen, because the people who are its most likely users, can never afford to pay for it......

doc

If Seattle's Metro were to limit it's scope to JUST the Seattle metro area, it's likely it would fall into the same catagory as NYC's transit system.  It's got the sound on one side, Lake Union and Lake Washington on the other, and urbanization hemming it in to the north and south.  However, Metro's full name is King County Metro, which means that it ranges from Federal way, south of SeaTac airport, up damned near to Everett and east to Snoqualmie.  And the worst part of it is that the County has lost lawsuits regarding less Metro service in the more suburban and rural areas of the county, so they have routes akin to a downtown Seattle grid serving towns of 2,000 to 5,000 out on the very fringes of the County. 

And so, the county and state continue to pour money into that black hole.

[The Village Idiot]

There are cities that are geographically suited for some forms of mass public transit.....Manhattan being the best example......a long narrow island, with limited points of entry and egress, with a huge poplation of commuters in a confined space.

I hear the NYC subway was awesome while it was privately run

[AllosaursRus]

Years ago, Spokane had a privately owned bus service. They made money every year. Their secret was traveling routes that had heavy traffic, hence the buses were generally full. They made round trips to downtown every hour. If they had a route that couldn't sustain itself, they dropped the route! What a novel idea!

Well, that wasn't good enough for the politicians. They cried foul because the Transit Authority wasn't serving the downtrodden out in the suburbs. What to do? What to do?

Eureka! Just buy the whole damn company and have the gubmint take it over and run it! What a great idea!

Automatically it became unionized, all the way down to the janitors that swept the floors and cleaned the buses. Of course this damn near doubled the labor costs!

Automatically fares dropped by more than half and they gave bus passes away like they were the measles to those deemed to poor to pay 75 cents to ride one way!! They bought 10 or 12 new buses, paid for by the taxpayer BTW, and made round trips every 1/2 hour thus doubling the operating costs. Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!111111

Sure, they expanded the service to the suburbs, and lost on average of 3 million dollars every year since!

What was it Reagan said? The scariest words in the English language, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help!"

[The Village Idiot]

What was it Reagan said? The scariest words in the English language, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help!"

A while back a private company said they could offer a bus service cheaper to the taxpayer than DART by having routes that would automatically adjust to demand. Sort of a Flexbus system using smaller buses and not allowing them to run routes empty all day long.

The City Council rejected that idea of course.

[AllosaursRus]

A while back a private company said they could offer a bus service cheaper to the taxpayer than DART by having routes that would automatically adjust to demand. Sort of a Flexbus system using smaller buses and not allowing them to run routes empty all day long.

The City Council rejected that idea of course.

Prob'ly had their hands tied by the Union thugs that pull their strings! After all when ya's lie with the dogs, yer bound to get bitten by the fleas!