Be glad if you have a system. In many Latin American cities, buses and routes are privately owned. Even tho they’re subsidized by the gov’t, the owners can’t figure out how to keep them in safe condition or hire safe drivers. The drivers’ goal is to meet time constraints and out-compete other drivers for passengers. Let’s hear it for free-market competition!
Morty and Lisa certainly offer a great contrast. When I have spent time in Europe in recent years, Vienna and Berlin mostly, I loved the freedom of being able to go wherever I liked, without much hassle, and quite cheaply, though those cities excellent public transportation. My family lived in Vienna for years back in the 1980s, and though my Dad immediately bought a car when he got the city (being an regular American), in the end whole months would go by without the car coming out of the garage. A good public transportation system means more freedom for everyone. Germany may be as much in love with the automobile as America is, but it is also a country where the working man has rights, and government is obliged to consider the welfare of all citizens, not just the more affluent. And they have more of the “we’re all in the same boat” mentality that we sometimes lack. I read about an interest example of that recently. Atlanta, I think it was, proposed extending bus service to certain middle-class suburbs. The residents opposed this measure because the availability of affordable public transport would mean that people of lesser means who worked in the city could then afford to live in those suburbs. The whole idea was in part to let people move to better neighborhoods. The people already there feared an influx of “undesirable” neighbors, and got the proposal abandoned. The fact that most of the people who would benefit from PT were black, and most of those living in these suburbs were white “had nothing to do with it” of course.
Doughfoot says: “A good public transportation system means more freedom for everyone.” A smart comment. Think about it. Some people don’t have the money to buy a car, but if there’s good public transit they have the freedom to move around. So public services can actually increase freedom. This is not an argument that everything should be socialized, but it does suggest that some socialization is a good thing.
The (relatively new) LA Metro (electric) trains are good when they go where I need to. One misfeature that has puzzled me is they don’t go to the main airport (LAX), nor Burbank (BUR). Taxi opposition, perhaps?
Ez2foome almost 12 years ago
That’s because they’re in a country that wasn’t run by the auto companies when their transit system was built.
144 Cent almost 12 years ago
Buffalo doesn’t need a map. There’s only one line, and there’s nothing on either end.
lontooni almost 12 years ago
I Hampton Roads more people are riding PT then ever. More are using bicycles too.
walruscarver2000 almost 12 years ago
A fun spot for the color blind.
lisapaloma13 almost 12 years ago
Be glad if you have a system. In many Latin American cities, buses and routes are privately owned. Even tho they’re subsidized by the gov’t, the owners can’t figure out how to keep them in safe condition or hire safe drivers. The drivers’ goal is to meet time constraints and out-compete other drivers for passengers. Let’s hear it for free-market competition!
Doughfoot almost 12 years ago
Morty and Lisa certainly offer a great contrast. When I have spent time in Europe in recent years, Vienna and Berlin mostly, I loved the freedom of being able to go wherever I liked, without much hassle, and quite cheaply, though those cities excellent public transportation. My family lived in Vienna for years back in the 1980s, and though my Dad immediately bought a car when he got the city (being an regular American), in the end whole months would go by without the car coming out of the garage. A good public transportation system means more freedom for everyone. Germany may be as much in love with the automobile as America is, but it is also a country where the working man has rights, and government is obliged to consider the welfare of all citizens, not just the more affluent. And they have more of the “we’re all in the same boat” mentality that we sometimes lack. I read about an interest example of that recently. Atlanta, I think it was, proposed extending bus service to certain middle-class suburbs. The residents opposed this measure because the availability of affordable public transport would mean that people of lesser means who worked in the city could then afford to live in those suburbs. The whole idea was in part to let people move to better neighborhoods. The people already there feared an influx of “undesirable” neighbors, and got the proposal abandoned. The fact that most of the people who would benefit from PT were black, and most of those living in these suburbs were white “had nothing to do with it” of course.
pirate227 almost 12 years ago
This is only depicting the three lines that are most affected by the new “rush plus”. It’s a plus for some, for others not so much.
Dtroutma almost 12 years ago
Too many American cities have no “functional” system, and it’s the “progress” brought by auto and oil companies, period.
lonecat almost 12 years ago
Doughfoot says: “A good public transportation system means more freedom for everyone.” A smart comment. Think about it. Some people don’t have the money to buy a car, but if there’s good public transit they have the freedom to move around. So public services can actually increase freedom. This is not an argument that everything should be socialized, but it does suggest that some socialization is a good thing.
TELawrence almost 12 years ago
The Osaka line is hard to read, too.
pbarnrob almost 12 years ago
The (relatively new) LA Metro (electric) trains are good when they go where I need to. One misfeature that has puzzled me is they don’t go to the main airport (LAX), nor Burbank (BUR). Taxi opposition, perhaps?