Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggernov | Hacker News Reader

The reason nobody uses public transit in America is it's always packed with transients or dangerous people.

I took public transit all the time living in Melbourne since it was clean and silent nearly 98% of the time. Same in the Netherlands.

View on HN

Hundreds of thousands of people use public transit daily in America. Long headways, poor coverage, and lackluster maintenance budgets are a much more important problem than what you're describing.

I take your point but the reality is millions use it daily. Also where it is better more use it. Which is the important point lost to many.

I was in San Francisco recently, and, okay, maybe San Francisco is special or something, but the public transport seemed basically fine? Insofar as it existed; coverage wasn’t great, but it didn’t seem particularly threatening where it existed.

BART is different than most systems. Generally people are talking about buses in my experience. Most trains/subways are relatively tame compared to buses. I was carless for a couple of years in college and had to live off campus to afford rent and riding the bus I encountered more than a few times that made me nervous.

If you ask some particular demographics about San Fran they'll tell you you'll get stabbed with a fentanyl coated super knife the second you step on the subway. And then they'll parade your body up and down the streets and dump you in the communal body bonfire.

Naturally, those people have never been to San Fran. They live in an ugly home in North Texas, where they commute 2 hours a day to their shitty office job and they know at least 5 people who have died in a car accident.

I wish public transit served homeless people as well as a lot of folks like to imagine it does.

A lot of homeless aren't "transients." They aren't just passing through.

If we had excellent public transit to make it easier for homeless people to travel at will, maybe they would be. And maybe their lives would be overall better and they would get less open hatred for being poor and unhoused in a world making it increasingly challenging to get housing for far too many people.

80% of homelessness in the USA is transitional, i.e. someone lost a job or had an injury and needs time to get back on their feet.

Transient: a person who is staying or working in a place for only a short time.

I don't think most people mean someone is only temporarily homeless when they call them transients.

In the same spirit, I never really associate the meaning of "transient" as "someone passing through," rather it's just a word for "homeless person" for me.

> The reason nobody uses public transit in America is it's always packed with transients or dangerous people.

That's a lie told by people who sell fear as a product to people who always want new reasons to live in fear.

Remember folks, if someone says they don't want to ride transit with a hobo smoking meth, they're lying and they're a bad person. Even if they've previously experienced it firsthand.

I know half a dozen people who have died in a car accident. I'm in my 20's.

I don't think those people are lying. I think they're 100% telling the truth... about 5% of the picture. Some consider that dishonest.

I spent years riding public transit in Portland, NYC, Seattle, SF, San Diego, Chicago, and other US cities. I can tell you anecdotally that public transit in the US is dangerous and meant for the poors who don’t have their shit together to level up and commute via car.

Ride 8AM and 5PM every workday for a year and tell me that it’s safe when you roll through the bad parts of Long Island/ brooklyn/Queens or the south side of Chicago. Tell me that you don’t have to take the inconvenient early train because of nTh handicap ramp pickup or last-mile cyclist that slows down your commute. Security on transit only cares about fare collection. The US is not like Europe where there is some latent pride in your ancestors accomplishments.

European here. Spent a week in NYC with a 9 month old. Traveled all over 4 of the 5 boroughs and never felt in the slightest threatened. The only major issue was the lack of elevators. Fortunately NYC people are really friendly and helped us with the stroller every time.

Maybe you came at the right time?

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-deploy-750-nationa...

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/05/02/new-tea...

It was back in 2013. Oh god… feels like only yesterday but it’s been 11 years :(

I used to live in Toronto in 2019 to 2020 and used the transit exclusively.

I return as a visitor of Toronto every quarter for work and there are many times where I Uber instead of TTC because of these comments. Even slightly busy at 4-5 PM there's always folks who have hit the gym and skipped showering and most days there's "something" happening on the TTC.

Motorists in Toronto have killed 34 people so far this year and seriously injured an additional 146 [0].

Meanwhile the TTC, with daily ridership in the million people range [0] has seen one homicide [2].

Which one is safer?

[0] https://www.toronto.ca/services-payments/streets-parking-tra...

[1] https://www.ttc.ca/transparency-and-accountability/Operating...

[2] https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/06/outrage-person-murdered-...

Noted, while I appreciate the citation it isn't entirely correct.

How many of those are Uber specifically with passengers? Why this specific? Because Uber has a ranking system and my gut feels says anything with a ranking system that has tons of feedback weeds out bad drivers.

The other portions of my comments is psychological safety, how many times do individuals get in an Uber and feel unsafe vs being in the TTC?

How many times do individuals take an Uber service, are crammed and with a driver that smells? Even if I got a ride like that I know the market system will remove that driver.

If you told me the TTC required an identification card to enter onto and TTC could suspend/revoke access I'd go back because there would be a regulating system to remove behavior that riders don't want.

I mean... this is a huge stretch. Car accidents are, more or less, completely out of your control as a driver. You can be an amazingly defensive driver and die. And you can drive like an ass and get lucky.

In fact, I'm sure a lot of those Uber drivers are rated well because they get there fast. Well, you have to drive like a maniac for that. In the city you need to drive bold if you want to get there with limited BS. That means risking your life.

Noted, the TTC website did not appear to cover all incidents and injuries related to all vehicle incident as compared with the motorists stats.

It looks to just focus on homicide safety stats.

This platitude doesn't make the back seats of a greyhound bus any more palatable.

God they were cheap tickets though..

>That's a lie told by people who sell fear as a product to people who always want new reasons to live in fear.

They don't just sell fear. They sell confirmation bias too.

The man who lives in an ivory tower in the suburbs is happy to read the news about a stabbing on the subway as it makes him feel less bad for not putting his money where his mouth is and riding it himself.

And he pays no attention to the reports about car crashes on the road because those aren’t even reported.

This is a vast oversimplification. Lots Angles Metro keeps posting month over month increases in ridership despite the perceive danger and unsavory experience.

I'm sure cleaner cars would help at the margins. Speed, convenience, comfortable, and cost all matter.

The current government in Queensland Australia announced 50c fares for 6 months trial. There is an election this month, the gov declared it will be made permanent, the opposition which is tipped to win has so far maintained they will also keep it. It has boosted PT travel significantly.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/oct/11/the-b...

This is just false. In the US, when public transport is good by the same measures as other countries use, such as frequency, coverage and so on, Americans use public transport just fine.

The real reason, rather then looking at the most basic surface level is actually the horrible land use planning and the horrible transportation and city engineering. This includes things like zoning, building regulation, environmental regulation and many other things.

I think this is one reason why it is rarely expanded, people associate the stops as a way for criminals to get around; but I think usage is not great largely because it hasn't expanded...it's a self-feeding cycle.

That is pure BS. At least as some general sweeping statement.

The main reason is because Americans are unbelievably wealthy and can afford large homes that require multiple cars for the family to get around. It’s a positive sign of American prosperity and the envy of the world hence the massive immigration demand and relative lack of expatriatism.

If America gets to a point where that’s no longer possible and people have to live in smaller and more densely populated areas not by choice but by necessity then the country is truly in decline.

Let the Germans cram themselves into smaller homes and trains. I truly hope Americans can continue to prosper and acquire comfortable homes with more utility and private transport powered by cheap energy for all.

That’s a nice but false narrative. The Swiss are wealthier than the Americans and yet they use public transport extensively.

Good public infra is wealth with much higher utility than private infra.

Roads are public infra. I agree they should be kept in good order.

In general yes. In particular some roads provide negative utility and should be closed or not built.

This reads like satire, but I'm not sure that it is and it's frightening me a bit.

What’s satirical about it? Why would people want a world where they are forced to live on top of each other in small places if they don’t have to due to plentiful energy and vast material wealth?

If some new age Protestant needs to live worse to fulfill some spiritual hole then they can do it. But everyone else wants a large yard, comfortable home with many rooms, nice cars, and well maintained infrastructure to drive and park.

Because living further apart means more driving, which sucks? And it means less community, which sucks? And it means you'll be fatter and die earlier, which sucks?

I'm not saying those are 100% true. I'm saying those are reasons and I can think of much, much more.

There's pros and cons to everything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com