Forum:Public transport

Okay, maybe this will later branch out, but here is the first question, that bugs me for quite some time now, regarding public transport and I would like to hear some input from those interested in the topic... So here goes:

What should public transport focus on?

In essence, should it focus more on the "marginal poor rider", i.e. those who have no choice but to use which ever form of transportation they can afford or should they rather focus on the "marginal rich rider", i.e. the people who can choose any means of transport (including cars and planes) and don't decide on price but rather on comfort and luxury. Some one once said "A developed country is not a country where poor people drive. It's a place where rich people use public transit" - I think this argument has merit. And if we want to solve our current transportation issues, rich people will also have to use public transit. We can't solve it on poor people alone. On the other hand, caring for the poor is one of the most essential things that makes us human and one of the most basic things that societies do. And poor people who can't use public transport any more (be it because of service cuts or because of price hikes) won't have any way of getting around... So what do you think? Also: don't say this is a false dilemma - in the real world there is only so much money you can spend on public transit and services for rich people and services for poor people differ in so many ways that only rarely do the two overlap. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the country - In america, where a car is a status symbol which is used to keep down the poor who can't afford it (and is rapidly being used to deny people their rights via voter id laws) focusing on public transport for the poor is important. the rich have their own transportation and get enough breaks from society as is, lets start with those who don't. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well even in the US there is a small (but growing) minority of urbanites of rich background (think Manhattan, Silicon Valley, San Francisco, the likes) who either don't own a car at all or use it very rarely. And this is at least in part due to public or de facto public transit focusing on them. Be it the google buses, the Acela or Subway lines connecting the business district to the airport. Even if the fare to ride any of these systems happens to be affordable (and for the Acela it is decidedly not), the way those systems operate makes them very close to useless for poor people. But on the other hand the decrease in pollution and congestion (or in the case of the Acela, less air travel) benefits everybody. Including poor people. Of course, none of this is true (for now) for places like Atlanta or Dallas. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is why i said focus on the poor who cannot own a car and thus have no other choice - the rich choosing to not own a car is irrelevant, they have -choice0 in the matter and the poor do not, and so the poor deserve first dibs on "improving peoples lives" not those who willfully choose to live life that way.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

But as we know from experience something that is mostly seen as "welfare" for poor people (aka "moochers" in right wing talk) is always on the brink of being eliminated with the next budget cuts. Some - not all - public transit forms for rich people pay for themselves (the Acela is in the black, the JRs are, as is the long distance subsidiary of almost every major European railway with high speed lines). A system that is in the black cannot easily be shut down. A system that serves enough rich people is impossible to shut down for political reasons. However, you can - if you are politically astute - create "feeder services" for the "rich people transit" that ultimately benefit poor people as well. Also (and I think I have said this elsewhere already) transit breeds transit, cars breed cars. If the only thing there is is a bus once an hour that takes thrice as long as taking a car, nobody who has a choice will take it. If you build a light rail line with free wifi that takes 80% of the car trip time, so many people will take it that you got yourself a whole new voting block for the next extension. I know that for many reasons poor people should be the focus, but in the real world you will lose 99 out of 100 times unless you build a system that at least also serves rich people. However, I still think "commuter rail" that bypasses poor neighborhoods and only runs during traditional commuting hours is just about the stupidest thing you can do, public transit wise. And ultra-short downtown only streetcars that are not much faster thaen walking aren't all that wise either... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)