Hacker News Reader

Comment by b9a2cab5 | Hacker News Reader

It would also financially cripple any poor person that relies on a car to get to work. And public transportation won't be viable in the US until cities finally wrap their head around the reality that you need basic security checkpoints at entrances to discourage riff raff from getting in (like in China).

If you've ever ridden BART, you know what I mean.

View on HN

> And public transportation won't be viable in the US until cities finally wrap their head around the reality that you need basic security checkpoints at entrances to discourage riff raff from getting in (like in China).

It seems like you're in SF. The bad experiences you have had there do not generalize to all other cities. I've lived in several US and foreign cities that have safe public transit without security checkpoints. Omnipresent security forces shouldn't be necessary if other city and state services are functional.

US cities I've been to:

East Coast city 1: no light rail, buses come every 45min

East Coast city 2: no light rail, buses come every 30-45min, but at least they were free

West Coast city 1: no light rail, buses come every 45min and cost $$$ if you want to take an express route

SF Bay Area: BART is a disaster, CalTrain only works well during peak hours and only if you live in the Peninsula. I literally watched a group of 2 teenagers hop the fare gates, get on, then get off the station before the fare checkers got on. Every station smells like piss and most of the ones in SF proper have shit in them too. BART East Bay -> Fremont/SJ is easily a 2 hour ride because the train moves at sub-30mph in residential areas.

Chicago: Trains still move pretty slowly but don't have piss and shit all over them at least. From what I can tell, buses are also not viable for reasonable transportation. Boston: Decent trains in most of the downtown/Cambridge area, but suburbs were pretty much a non-starter.

In comparison:

Shanghai/Beijing: security checkpoints at subway entrances, getting on/off trains is orderly and trains are clean. Trains run fast because authorities don't care about making too much noise, so you aren't better off driving because the train was running at 25mph. Trains come every 5mins or more often. You can get across the city in under an hour.

For the US cities that had light rail, the issues were clearly not due to lack of funding but due to NIMBYism limiting speeds and a refusal to enforce any level of security (in the case of SF). I bet you can get BART to come every 5 mins instead of every 20mins with the same number of trains if you 4x'd the speed to 80-100 mph. BART already does over that speed in long stretches like the Bay tunnel or the long stretches in Fremont so it's not like this requires any sort of re-engineering.

> I literally watched a group of 2 teenagers hop the fare gates, get on, then get off the station before the fare checkers got on

Wow… what a dystopia!

More seriously, is this really a huge issue? You can see that all day long in Paris, it doesn’t stop the transport system from being OK

Replace 2 teenagers with "homeless guy that shit himself" or "criminals" [1] and you have a different story. If you have proper security this sort of class of behavior is entirely prevented.

[1]: https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-5...

Just a thought, but maybe a social safety net would be more effective in preventing the homeless from getting into the kind of state where they do that? Rather than more security. Just thinking laterally about the problem here..

We can do both at the same time. We can help the homeless and also prevent people from shitting or littering in public transportation vehicles and on boarding platforms.

Teens are relevant here mostly as a test of the system’s ability to exclude. A system excluding people sounds a little mean, but it is important if you want to have a transit system that is actually fit for transit.

When there’s a homeless man shooting up with some drugs on the narrow platform at Bleecker St while a crowd of people try to get off the train and get out of there without tripping or provoking a confrontation, and that’s “normal” for the city subway, the people may decide the system is no longer fit for transit. Fortunately that’s still “slightly extraordinary” for NYC and not quite “normal” (I only saw him once) but it’s all very unfortunate.

How do any of these complaints support the need for "security checkpoints"? A city lacking a subway system altogether does not support your statement that transit systems need security checkpoints to keep out the "riff raff." The two things aren't even related to each other. Furthermore there are many clean and efficient systems in Europe that don't even have turnstiles, let alone security checkpoints.

Aside from your complaints about the BART, everything you've catalogued here either reflects a lack of investment, or the old age of US subway systems as compared to the newer transit systems in Asia. Chicago and Boston's subway systems are among the very oldest subway systems in the world. They both began operation in the 1890s. Shanghai's subway system opened in the 1990s. It's also convenient that NYC, home to one of the world's very largest subway systems, didn't make your list, but Shanghai and Beijing did. Finally, it's not necessarily a good thing that authorities in China "don't care about making too much noise." NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people.

The US needs more investment in public transit. There's no arguing that. But your suggestion that "security checkpoints" are necessary to have good transit just isn't true.

EDIT: The Boston suburbs are served by an extensive rail system. You may have missed it because it runs as a separate line from the main subway. Here's a map: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/2020-07/2020-02-com...

I've not been to NYC, so it obviously didn't make my list.

> clean and efficient systems in Europe that don't even have turnstiles

Europe also doesn't have a rampant property crime and homelessness issue on the scale of the Bay Area. We can argue about whether this is because of the lack of safety net, but SF spends over $50k per homeless person on aid and is _the_ worst in the nation in homelessness so clearly there are multiple factors at work here.

> NIMBYism may be a problem, but so is a government that is unresponsive to the petitions of its people

At some point the needs of millions of commuters outweigh the desires of the few thousand residents living along a train route. A high speed electric light rail is no louder than a freeway and we already have lots of those. The issue with the current American system is that local citizens have _too_ much power in comparison to slightly less local people who may live a 20min drive away. For example, constructing new housing is obviously going to lower the price of rent, which would benefit everyone currently renting or in the market for a house. But it would screw over existing homeowners, so it's blocked even though it causes rampant inequality and homelessness.

You know commuters who don't live next to you are also part of the people that live in your city? Just because they vote in a different district doesn't mean their lives aren't hugely impacted by your NIMBYism.

> Shanghai/Beijing: security checkpoints at subway entrances, getting on/off trains is orderly and trains are clean.

But the lines to get on can be a PITA. Eg. waiting in line for 45 minutes to get on the subway in Beijing at Liangmaqiao is a horrible experience. I'll take the piss smell in the USA to that. Actually, the security check waits in Beijing subway was the main reason I transitioned quickly to taking a taxi to and from work. (see https://www.thatsmags.com/beijing/post/20938/photos-increase..., not my personal experience, but I've experienced similar in the interchange at Dongzhimen).

I think security checkpoints are the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

Yes, American public transport and city design does indeed suck — I am not an American, but I have visited for a total of 4 months, used public transport in NYC, Boston, Bay Area, and the SanFran-Davis-Sacremento line — but here in Berlin there aren’t even ticket barriers, and nothing particularly exciting happens here even from the homeless person[0] who begged on my pre-COVID commute. Some fairly fancy busking from time to time, but that’s the peak of excitement.

[0] I assume. Just one person, recognised their practiced speech. Might have been selling German equivalent to the Big Issue for all I know, as they didn’t really get in the way of anyone.

Berlin's public transport is pretty dirty though. If I had to live in Berlin, I'd get a car, even if it takes more time.

I realize everyone has a different threshold for what they consider dirty, and people voluntarily living in Berlin seem to have a much higher threshold than me, but yeah, I'd prefer some checks in exchange for clean & undamaged public transport.

>> until cities finally wrap their head around the reality that you need basic security checkpoints at entrances

Sounds like you live in a "war zone". I don't know any place in Europe with that kind of security.

Yeah it's bad enough to deal with all that when flying. If this would come to the metro I'd never use it again. All we really have in terms of crime is pickpockets. Adding security will just make them operate more on the streets.

We don't have a totalitarian state here like China. That's a good thing.

I'm not talking about the millimeter wave scanners TSA has where they make you take off your shoes and take out all your stuff. We're talking 1-2 officers who quickly glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector you walk through, similar to the security at a football game. It's more intended as security theatre by the presence of officers to discourage petty crime than to catch terrorists.

Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious enough.

>> glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector

Why would you like transportation staff to treat you like a criminal?

>> Forcing criminals to move to the streets

Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals rather than to move them around?

> Why would you like transportation staff to treat you like a criminal?

Because I accept that a slight inconvenience will lead to a much better riding experience. For example, Amtrak has aggressive fare checkers onboard (full pass of the train every few minutes) who will remove a lot of the type of people that cause disruptions. If you've already been checked, you have a ticket stub above your seat. Is it a coincidence that Amtrak trains are also very clean and have basically no crime? I feel comfortable using my phone on Amtrak without gripping it with two hands and constantly looking around me to prevent theft - I can't say the same about BART.

> Maybe a better approach would be to have less criminals rather than to move them around?

SFBA cities' budgets are quantified in the billions. We can afford to work towards having less while simultaneously reducing the locations they have access to for committing crime.

> We're talking 1-2 officers who quickly glance inside your bag and maybe a metal detector you walk through, similar to the security at a football game. It's more intended as security theatre by the presence of officers to discourage petty crime than to catch terrorists.

So just for some security theatre I have to give up a lot of privacy, add to my travel time by waiting in a queue, pay a higher fare to pay for all these guys? I'm really glad we don't do this here.

I don't like people demanding to look in my bag, trying to frisk me or metal scanning (of course I have metal on me). It will make me feel less safe.

> Forcing criminals to move to the streets makes public transportation more appealing, I think that's obvious enough.

So then you have to deal with them when you come out of the metro :) It's only moving the problem. Better to make sure they don't have to steal by having a decent welfare system.

Was going to comment the same. What kind of city would need that?

I'm always amazed at how people think their little part of the world is an accurate representation of reality.

BART is uniquely bad in that respect. Significantly worse than other North American cities. Chalk it up to Bay Area dysfunction and inequality.

Used EVs will be relatively affordable soon and the total cost of ownership is significantly lower.

> Used EVs will be relatively affordable soon

We're very far away from crossing under 30K, much less 10K

Used Chevy volt for 5-15k, it seems you can get a sub 10k electric car already?

A Volt is a hybrid, not a pure electric. (The Bolt is Chevy’s BEV.)

Even a hybrid is probably sufficient in this context.

Upthread context: “If I had a vote whether to ban combustion engines from my city (cars, trucks, mopeds, leaf blowers - everything), with a relatively short transition period (say 5 years), I'd be in favor.”

In that context, the Volt (and other hybrids, plug-in or not) would either be banned or be required to disable their ICE engines in the city.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504461

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

But EVs are really not perfect anyway.

People say why have two powerplants. The reason is to get rid of the (environmental impact of) 300 mile batteries.

90% of the time, 10% of the battery is enough.

From the page above:

"If you never miss a plane, you're spending too much time at the airport."

Indeed, and that was for the reason of ending emissions within a city. A poor person who commutes with one is likely (even though not guaranteed) to be using it over the sort of distance where the tiny battery is sufficient, so with regard to achieving that goal rather than that method, I think hybrids would probably be sufficient.

I agree that banning all ICE vehicles in 5 years is not a practical nor worthwhile goal to pursue.

It's in a weird space. It's kinda a pure electric.

So what? If it drives a few 10s of miles without burning gas, if everyone used them, that would eliminate probably 90%+ of emission pollution in cities.

I feel that the obsession with pure electric has crippled the fight against pollution and CO2 emissions. Every car with 20 miles of battery range is probably a lot more impactful in the fight against climate change than 10% of cars with 200 miles of battery range, and has fewer major tradeoffs (cheaper, limited range/recharging is not an issue, much less need to build an entirely new charging infrastructure).

Upthread context is someone positing/supporting a total ban of all ICE in their city and someone arguing that’s disproportionately harmful to the poor because pure EVs are more expensive. In that context, it matters quite a bit that the Volt has an ICE, even though I overall agree with you on the Volt being environmentally beneficial.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28504461

My LEAF cost a little over $30K brand new (before $10K in total rebates).

Used LEAFs (and Smart ED/EQs) are readily available in the $5K to $10K range.

BART existing at all puts it ahead of the majority of cities in the US (for reference, per capita San Fansisco has the second most trips on public transit of any city in the US). New York is the only US city that has comparable public transit to international contemporaries.

Long decades of poor planing in the US (and in general the low population density) make it a place ill-suited to public transportation. EVs affordable enough for the poor will definitely be required here, so here’s hoping you’re right and we’ll reach that point soon.

>EVs affordable enough for the poor will definitely be required here

Here in SW Ontario there are countless people riding those electric scooters or ebikes in the summertime. I’ve even seen old barflies hop on after drinking a pitcher and head on to the next spot. I’m sure the Bay Area has more clement weather year-round than here.

I commuted to/from a train on an electric scooter. Not only are they just not viable for any trips longer than 3-4 miles, you can't go up any sort of incline either. Mine was "overclocked" to enable up to 500w of power and I'm 180lbs, but it wouldn't be able to climb even a 10 degree incline at over walking speed. And at least the consumer ones you can find on Amazon are not robust enough to withstand even 6 months of daily use before the tire wears out, battery terminals corrode, and screws start falling out.

I've used a normal bike and an e-bike and didn't have such issues.

$2k e-bikes are probably more robust than the $600 scooter I was riding and would definitely be my choice next time around. For anyone interested in e-scootering though, avoid the Segway ES series like hell and make sure you do your research.

>(and in general the low population density)

The low population density is arguably caused by the bad planning.

>make it a place ill-suited to public transportation.

I'm quite convinced that you will not be able to drive yourselves out of the issue you have in the U.S - you'll need to retrofit what you have to make it amenable to proper public transportation. EVs help a bit, but only really with the carbon dioxide-issue - everything else bad about cars is still bad with EVs.

Perhaps it puts them ahead, but they are coasting. BART and Muni ridership has for years been stagnant or declining, while the budgets explode and system speed and on-time performance fall apart.

Maybe Caltrain did marginally better? They added express services not that long ago.

These problems do not exist for much of the rest of the worlds public transportation systems.

The problem that San Francisco is facing, and that you should attempt to solve instead of spending energy on excluding already poor people from public transportation, is homelessness.

In the least we need better surveillance of public spaces and facial recognition for (limited) use when a crime is involved. If criminals aren’t brought to justice and don’t face consequences, there is no deterrent and they’ll perform more crimes and bigger crimes. It is why BART escalated from isolated crimes to an entire train being raided by 50-60 robbers with no arrests (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bart-robbery-oakland-teens-stor...).

Imagine being exposed to some of the most vulnerable and desperate people in The United States and thinking “We should keep them out” instead of “We should help them.”

These are not incompatible thoughts though are they? One can think that we should help the homeless while also think that the public transport is not usable for their own usage while it also acts as a homeless shelter.

I’m not living in a city where this is a problem, so maybe my viewpoint is naive here. I want my tax to be spent on helping the homeless, even if that means that I have to pay more, and I also don’t want to sit next to someone on the bus who had no opportunity to wash in the last weeks. I don’t feel that these thoughts are in conflict.

It’d be quite nice to help them. The SF budget certainly tries, though $50,000 for a tent is a little on the steep side.

“Free rein to abuse the subway system and its riders” is however a policy with very limited utility when it comes to helping people, and the costs are very high. Transit systems should keep them out insofar as they are not engaging in transit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com