zlacker

>>amathe+(OP)
It’s odd to me that these anti-car polemics never talk about why Americans don’t want to ride public transit, while people in most other countries have zero issues adopting it wholesale. Instead they just make it into a simplistic, moralistic crusade about how the suburban car owners are evil people, told from the perspective of a righteous city-dweller.

Here’s a better theory: because American public transit is, when compared with the alternatives, not safe, not clean, and not convenient. Take LA, probably the most car-dependent big city in America. Riding the bus or subway in LA is not an enjoyable experience. Nor is it enjoyable to walk around the areas where the stops are. If I were trying to get more people to use public transit, I’d start by making the stations and buses/subways beautiful, clean, safe places that are just nice urban places to hang out in. There’s no need to make it a moral crusade; just offer a better product and more people will use it.

>>keifer+Vc
Do you think cleanliness and perceived safety* are more important than more frequent and faster public transit? I'm not asking in a combatitive way, just discussing. I think these are all important for encouraging Americans to use public transit more, but, imo, convenience is the single thing biggest factor that gets the general population to take up something in this country. If a car is more convenient than a bus, then most people will choose the car.

*I say "perceived safety," because vibes seem to matter more than actual safety. Like, the stats on car wrecks, drunk driving, distracted driving, and so on are alarming. But when I think of someone concerned about "safety," I imagine someone being uncomfortable around people they feel are sketchy.

>>Utopia+ZY
I’m not sure I’d say more important, but definitely of equal importance. Especially in terms of how people perceive public transit; i.e. is it just for people that can’t afford a car, or is it clean, comfortable, and a viable alternative to a car?