Ask HN: Space in the market for luxury public transit?

It's been done. Trains in Japan have the option of paying more for the "green car" or a "liner" instead of the regular railcars or regular trains.

But really, how often are people actually defecating on the public transit? Maybe one time you read an article where someone said they saw that? Either public transit is really good in the cities I've lived in, or the problem is you rather than it. Just sayin'.

I am in a pretty high tax bracket and I would never consider "luxury public transit". If I don't want to take the train, I ride my bike instead. (I don't have a driver's license.)

I've watched at least 4 defecations in the past year, and uncountable urinations.. Add to that 6 or 7 fist fights, a purse snatching, and my personal favorite, a crazy man swinging his cane at me while ranting about homosexuals and family values.

Nevertheless, beyond my personal experiences, antidotes become facts in the minds of people who are on the fence about something. When suburbanites hear about problems on public transit they decide that if they take a bus in the city, they're going to get killed, and don't use it.

I have never, ever seen defecations or urinations in my public transport system here in Chile. The worst I've seen is two weirdos cossing someone else out, then pulling the emergency break, then getting arrested for it.

I have never, ever seen public defecations or urinations on my public transport system either.

The worst I've seen is the odd excessively loud person and perhaps people having sex - but that's it.

It's really not that bad, it could be like jrockway suggested: a symptom of the OP's area rather than the public transit system.

I've never seen this in the US.

Sounds like San Francisco has a serious homeless problem, and possibly other problems as well (enforcement on the public transit lines?). Perhaps it should deal with that. Building a redundant public transit line to pretend the problem doesn't exist doesn't really sound like a solution, and creates inefficiencies that exacerbates the disparity in wealth.

SF should just figure out a way to keep homeless off public transit. Perhaps they could charge nominal access fees that could be waived by a DL, passport or other proof of residence, and use the extra revenue to fund improved security.

>to keep homeless off public transit

They don't need to do that. Being homeless doesn't mean you are necessarily lacking in morals and public decency. They need to find some way to enforce reasonable behaviour from their paying passengers of whatever status.

I don't know about keeping the homeless off of public transit. I just don't want to have to smell them, or have my physical safety threatened by them. We're going to fail at treating the disease (failed healthcare), but at least we can look at treating some of the symptoms in order to increase diversity in our transportation system.

I would think your best option is to carpool with those people who are already driving. Luxury public transit already exists in most cities with private limo and car services, and at least here in Boston it is very expensive compared to the cost of a T pass. While I also hate the smell of pee (I can't say anything about the customer service because basically everything here is automated), I am fine with it since it is only $60 a month.

When I think customer service, I think of things like a driver being able to alert you to your stop. Or even better, not purposefully accelerating and decelerating in a manner which makes you fall down (I have a friend who is a Muni driver who actively tries to knock people over, he says it's the highlight of his shift). Heck, why not have bus attendants walking the aisles to sell you beer and sandwiches, like on an airplane or a ferry?

there are plenty of "business class" intercity bus services around the world, but do you really need that "luxury" for a 30 minute commute? it might work intra-city, but it will sure be hard sell, especially on such small scale...

maybe you should instead work to make public transit in your location more bearable to you?

Luxury and public are mutually exclusive.

But I definitely see there being a need for people to have an alternative to public transit that's a tier above what there is now. I'm sure a ton of people would sign up for that.

To begin with, I love cars. I live in cities so I can have a great lifestyle, and to take advantage of all the city has to offer. So you and I are sort of thinking along the same lines, but making a different choice--for different reasons.

I love cars so much that once we get this business profitable and I get enough income from it I will probably buy a convertible Bentley GT like this one:

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/glitters/b/bently_-8712...

I am not sure if people who drive their own car vs. ride on a bus are doing it out of any having less of a tolerance for the fistfights or other social problems though. I think that the convenience (and for some the prestige) of driving is why people drive rather than it being a cost point or service issue. I do not think public transportation will ever --draw--people out of their cars. To me it’s comparing apples to oranges.

I love having a car and would really hate having to ride a bus or train. Although I do agree with you that public transit is lacking in some ways, in many places the cost is subsidized by the taxpayers to keep it affordable and it does serve to make life easier (and nicer) for people without a car.

In times past, trains used to have separate cars for 1st class, 2nd class and 3rd class. Maybe given the current political climate the cities would be hostile to allowing a separate bus service to operate in this manner. A separate bus service that would be viewed as superior to the buses serving the general population might be frowned upon by the cities and for that reason be impossible to get going. Plus, what would stop the same problem causing riders from occasionally riding the upscale bus and causing the same problems.

while there are outliers who would never drive or who would never take public transit, I think most of us will take the most convenient route from point A to point B. I do think that if public transit was the most efficient way to get from point a to point b, more people would use it. While I don't think adding 'luxury' features would draw many riders out of cars, I do think that if public transit was more convenient than driving, it would draw many people out of cars.

>I think that the convenience (and for some the prestige) of driving is why people drive rather than it being a cost point or service issue.

FWIW as an anecdotal point - if I were richer I'd take the bus. If I were a lot richer I'd ditch the car and use the bus day-to-day, use a taxi for the weekly shop, hire cars for long journeys (or take the train). Basically I'd consider this the best balance of environmental impact, utility (we're a family of 4) and cost.

#1 problem with the bus for me is that I need to pay attention. Solve that problem (with a gps device that 'dings' when I need to get off, or the like.) and you don't need to build more infrastructure.

Personally, if I can ride the train (caltrain here in the south bay, or BART in the rest of the bay area) it's pretty good. I work rather than paying attention to driving. the bus is right out, not because of the poverty, but because I have to pay attention, else I end up at the wrong stop.

The thing is, on the train, I'm working. I've got one of those cellular modems in my laptop, so really I don't mind that it often takes longer than driving. In fact, I'd prefer to remove the complex 'express' schedules, as it's difficult to figure out what train you need to be on. (the shitty PA speaker is hard to understand, even when the conductor gives you clear instructions, which isn't often) Also, often in many trains it is difficult to tell which train you are in from inside the train, and the number on the cab flashes by quickly.

It is strange that transit agencies that have services with different stopping patterns don't buy railcars with destination signs on them. In Chicago, Metra Electric recently bought new railcards, and the front of the trains have digital destination signs... but they just use the internal railway coding on them, so normal customers have no idea which train is which. It is kind of dumb. (Sure, I figured out their code, but I don't expect that out of most people.)

Also nice are digital signs at the stations that show which train is which, like these:

http://sbarnhill.mvps.org/Japan/Images/DepartureBoard.JPG

It shows the name and destination of the next three trains, and the stations that the next train stops at. Not sure why we don't have these in the US.

It shows the name and destination of the next three trains, and the stations that the next train stops at. Not sure why we don't have these in the US.

The LIRR (Long Island Rail Road) does; it shows the final destination at top and all the stops along the way underneath. If the sign only has one line, it scrolls to show all the stops. Most trains even have a sign in the car that shows what the destination and next stop are.

I'll take some pictures tomorrow when I pass through it.

FWIW, http://cld.ly/0f1o7m (Inside a train; in this case, the Airtrain from JFK to Jamaica) and http://cld.ly/ed1o7n (On the platform at Jamaica, transferring to go to the station in my town.)

There's a few (or, at least one) other picture, but thats on my phone (non-smartphone, so its a big of a dance to get pictures off of it).

When I was living in the SF Bay Area, I took a class on 'Homelessness and Public Policy' from an SF college. My recollection: There were about as many homeless people in SF at that time as in NY and NY is quite a lot larger, population-wise. That is probably part of why you see so much crap (literally and figuratively, I guess) on SF public transit.

I would be all for improving public transit in the US. I currently live without a car and I don't want to ever go back to owning a car or driving one. Yet I basically don't use public transit because, where I live, 'you can't get there from here'. (Ex: There is a bus stop maybe 15 minutes from my apartment and a bus stop maybe 10 or 15 minutes from my office. You can't get there from here by bus, except possibly by going an hour downtown, changing buses, and coming back. I can walk it in less time than that.)

I believe there is such a market, but you'd have a hard time serving it given the power that MUNI and the cab industry have over municipal transport regulation.

Cabs are a 'luxury' option costing 3x-15x MUNI for similar trip lengths -- and incumbent cabbies already politically limit the entry of new cabs. So, they would hardly sit still for the creation of another cost-competitive transport category.

Similarly, the same political force (and romanticized vision of public transit) that insulates MUNI and its employees from much accountability can also work to insulate them from real competition. "Don't license this new 'luxury' service! It'll destroy MUNI, leaving the city with bigger transit deficits and the poorest with even fewer options."

I would rephrase this question as: How do we make public transportation more convenient?

The price of convenience is increased cost, which leads to fewer customers. So luxury will be a by-product of your approach, at least initially.

But yes, I really want more convenient public transit.

I think it is more than convenience. The real question is, how do we make public transportation less like a public service, and more like a profit-driven business? Call me a classest, but I don't want to have to share my commute with a schizophrenic who thinks the floor is a public bathroom, or with someone that's about to make Youtube's "best of fistfights on transit".

Proper health care and social services would probably go a long way.

But I suppose that is not compatible with a world of "profit-driven businesses"?

We'll spend an incredible amount of money on health care and social services, but they will never be terribly effective. I've never seen a social service that was effective at anything but spending money. However a profit-driven business could make headway towards solving many transportation issues en masse.

"Proper." Anyway. I live in a place where public transportation is plentiful, convenient, and rarely beset by attacks from the less-fortunate.

Classist.

There.

I've seen and experienced my fair share of sketchiness on public transit, but I think it's something important enough that I cannot imagine supporting a tiered transit system.

I can afford to drive - I choose to use public transit for lifestyle reasons (and the big bundle of cash it saves me sure isn't burning a hole in my pocket) and to support what I think is one of the great remaining equalizers in our society. I will gladly and willingly pay higher fares than poor people if it means increased accessibility for them to a system that, in all honesty, they need more than I do. When I walk into work 20 minutes late because the bus broke down, nobody yells at me - for people in less fortunate positions in life, it can mean getting fired. An effective transit system that is affordable, accessible, and reliable is an absolute requirement if you want to even begin fixing the poverty problem.

And none of this can possibly occur if we create multi-tiered transit. All you will get is super-effective transit that only connects wealthy areas, and a barely functional lower tier that subsists on government handouts, and can't even get poor people to work on time. It will simply become a gaping money-hole that serves no one - it will make taxes higher for you, and make transit much less effective for the poor, and worsen the poverty situation in your city.

Transit is one of those issues that is close to my heart, and one where I'm willing to tolerate a lot of imperfections, because IMHO it's bigger and more important than me, or you, or wealthy people in general.

Hell, even just as a simple reality check public transit has benefited me greatly - I find that tech people are paid well, and many seem to lose touch with reality "on the ground" after a while - I've heard some truly idiotic and insensitive words uttered by my coworkers about the homeless, for example. My nightmare is becoming yet another pretentious, arrogant upper-middle class suburbanite tech worker, and I think riding transit daily at least does something to keep that in check. At least it won't let me dehumanize people poorer than I am like so many wealthy people seem to do.

> The price of convenience is increased cost, which leads to fewer customers.

Yes and no; all public transportation in the U.S. save a few exceptions is vastly underused in my experience. An influx of people to meet even expanded capacity would also mean more revenue...with sufficient patronage, convenience and coverage can be increased without bringing up the price much (if at all.)

transit usage in the denver area jumped with the gas prices, and the cost of rides increased repeatedly, and more than the gas prices increased, as far as i could tell.

I am sure it did. I do not see, however, what that has to do with capacity/patronage?

All is quite a generalization. Try cramming yourself on any of the buses that run through Chinatown in San Francisco between the hours of 7am and 10pm.

"all public transportation in the U.S. save a few exceptions"

Sounds like a jitney. Add in onboard wifi, the ability to request pickup via geo-enabled sms.

Bigger question is how much would such a service cost to be profitable to run, and would people pay that much?

Get a bike. It's healthy, it's cheap and it's environmentally sound.

While I appreciate the sentiment, biking in San Francisco is far too risky. The time savings vs walking isn't worth the health implications and the stuff you have to carry on you.

While I appreciate that sentiment, there are places other than San Francisco! Still, actual good public transportation is probably a better first step than trying to get everyone to ride.

Bicycles are not always the answer, especially not in a city as cold, hilly, and overrun by suburban drivers as San Francisco is.. People from Marin, Walnut Creek, and all over the peninsula & south bay shouldn't be allowed to drive in San Francisco, but they do, often hitting other objects on the road.

"Often"?

Like what, once every million passenger-miles?

No offense, but it sounds like you are too afraid of the city to leave your house. Perhaps you should see a therapist instead of lobbying for some special public transit lines for people that are exactly like you?

shrug I will not get into this debate, I've yet to meet a cyclist who isn't blind to reason about being sure that their lifestyle is the correct one.

You're the one who's too afraid to leave your house, not me.

Whatever dude.

shrug I will not get into this debate, I've yet to meet a cyclist who isn't blind to reason about being sure that their lifestyle is the correct one for eveybody.

It exists in Brazil. It is in buses; you pay twice as much and it has air conditioning and more comfortable seats.

It also exists on the Paris metro.

They did away with the first class metro wagons in '91 in Paris and unless they've reinstated them since this summer (when I was there), I think you are mistaken.

I heard about the first class wagons secondhand, and when I went I only saw first class on the trains. I guess you're right.

I drive even when I live in San Francisco. A (nice) car costs about $1k/mo to keep in SF (parking, registration, insurance, payment) before the first mile driven, but it is how I would spend my marginal $1k at $5k/mo.

1) I need 24x7 access to datacenters, some of which are in super sketchy parts of town (200 Paul, in HP) or are in the South Bay. A taxi might be an option, but a couple $200 taxi rides per month, plus an hour of waiting, would be a real pain.

2) I enjoy going on long trips, by land, with minimal planning. Rental cars are more cost effective with depreciation, but I like having a familiar car, very well maintained, and keeping my firearms/EMT kit/etc. pre-positioned in the vehicle. I'd consider flying, but my circle of equal pain makes driving to LA a 100%, and driving to vegas kind of borderline. I drive to Portland or Seattle even. Avoiding the hassle of the airport, more cargo capacity, and having a familiar vehicle on the other end, all add up.

3) Shooting sports. Going to a shooting range with a long-arm on public transit is a no-go :) Also, try taking 50 pounds of ammo on the bus.

4) Grocery shopping and other routine chores -- zipcar could accomplish a lot of this (and I have zipcared a pickup truck a few times, although their maintenance leaves a lot to be desired)

5) I love cars and driving, although not so much in SF itself. Parking in SF largely makes driving in SF unpleasant.

6) I enjoy having more stuff with me than I can comfortably carry, and the car serves as a portable locker. Having a spare laptop battery, paper, cases of bottled water, etc. a quick trip to the car away is nice. Plus, while it's slightly paranoid, having a vehicle with emergency supplies nearby, and a means of travel, radio, power source, etc. is reassuring -- if there were an earthquake or other disaster, there's a limit to what survival supplies I might have on my person, but my car is good for 96h.

If I were commuting between SFO and SEA a lot, I'd probably buy a second car and keep one on each end, just to avoid needing public transit. (and someday I'd go for a plane!)

None of this would be solved by a plush seat (like 1st class) or lack of crazy people and urine smell (like cabs vs. muni). I am probably an outlier in the combination of these, but not on each individual point.

I do try to avoid needing a long daily commute, either through wfh or living near the office, so I can keep the car parked and walk to/from the office. Still, I'd prefer a 10 minute drive to a 60-90 minute muni/bart/caltrain adventure to get to/from the office!

If you don't have kids then a scooter is a very good option. I used to travel a 10mile commute once a week including winter (in the UK) - I couldn't afford special clothing except the warm "lobster claw" gloves. My wife and I shared the scooter and with a back box it could do our weekly shop in a single trip; 125cc was essential to be able to get up some of the hills here with 2up and a back box full of goodies.