Is Public transit Charity?

[SammyS]

BG's point isn't that Pacificas are great cars. Its that trying to be the MTA or CTA isn't possible. We don't have the density nor local economy. Subways here would be absurd. Light rail, well maybe on a couple major runs. Even BRT won't ever be the answer to the Chene line.

We need to have public transit -- for a non-trivial segment of our population. But it makes no economic sense to have a 10 Mile Road bus line. So we have to think smarter.

For Detroit, I suspect the best solution [[outside of the major lines) would be to eliminate DDOT, and Uber/Lyft it 100%. Yes, there are challenges. Lack of smartphones/credit cards. But if we could invent cars here, we sure could invent solutions to little problems. [[Phone call-ins, alternate payment/credit methods.).

Pouring money into heavy busses won't ever get us something that works for the disadvantaged among us, nor for each wave of hipsters being hatched.

You are absolutely correct and your solution not only saves money but is the perfect segue into Autonomous Vehicles. By that point, most of Detroit’s problems with public transportation would be resolved.

[dtowncitylover]

You are absolutely correct and your solution not only saves money but is the perfect segue into Autonomous Vehicles. By that point, most of Detroit’s problems with public transportation would be resolved.

How would autonomous vehicles solve congestion issues? Poverty issues? Ownership issues? More vehicles on the road means more congestion. Poor people still wouldn't be able to afford autonomous vehicles.

This over-zealous jizzfest for autonomous vehicles is rather comical considering we're probably still 50 years away from any mass-scale production of them.

When people are moving into cities and cities aren't built to have cars, how is autonomous vehicles going to be any more beneficial than regular cars? Answer: they're not. It's the same. It's still going to take up space that could be used for something better.

[Wesley Mouch]

How would autonomous vehicles solve congestion issues? Poverty issues? Ownership issues? More vehicles on the road means more congestion. Poor people still wouldn't be able to afford autonomous vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles may not solve congestion. But neither have cars. And neither has public transit. Anywhere. I've not been everywhere, but public transit [[as we know it -- PTAWKI) seems to mostly be a disaster. NYC subways? Oh, there's success! Paris bus system [[been on it recently -- walking would have been faster).

Mass transit doesn't really seem to scale well.

Once upon a time, say around 1900 or so, companies and governments fought over who got to run profitably transit lines. Government won. And we have not yet been given the glorious future you describe.

I'm not saying Uber/Lyft is the answer. Nor are a fleet of self-driving Pacificas.

What I am saying is that we know we don't have the answer yet. And building the same, dysfunctional transit systems isn't the answer either. [[Sure there are those who love their busses -- but I suspect far more who hate riding them. I rode the bus for years in my misguided youth -- a choice as it worked for me. And it wasn't bad on my rather busy route.)

What I'm sure of is that pouring money and investment into the same old bus/subway/light rail pit can only get us to mediocre.

Is waiting 45 minutes for a 730 Smart bus acceptable? OK, let's double the system cost and make it 22 minutes. Oh boy, isn't that great! Meanwhile, four people from within a 1 mile radius also need to get to downtown Plymouth. Autonomous vehicles make a nice 'dreamy' solution. It probably won't work well either as the only solution. But...

We have the chance to pretty much design a transit system that works from scratch. I just don't think doing the same things done for the last 100 years is the right or only solution.

This over-zealous jizzfest for autonomous vehicles is rather comical considering we're probably still 50 years away from any mass-scale production of them.

When people are moving into cities and cities aren't built to have cars, how is autonomous vehicles going to be any more beneficial than regular cars? Answer: they're not. It's the same. It's still going to take up space that could be used for something better.[/QUOTE]
Most of Paris is still a clogged traffic mess. Transit doesn't solve it. An autonomous vehicle that spends 90% of its time moving doesn't need a parking space [[near the city). And it replaces 5 or 10 cars that are parked 90% of their life. Again, I'm not advocating for any one solution. But I sure don't see how the 'same old way' for transit is a good solution either. Let's find a better way. Who would have thought that Uber/Lyft would ever exist. That smartphones/networks could tell us more about how to get somewhere than a DDOT printed map. Could tell us whether our driver is naughty or nice. I'm certain that Uber/Lyft wasn't the brainchild of a transit planner for DDOT [[or the MTA/CTA/XTA). Maybe the solution will be self-driving bus tractors that tow vehicles around -- and that can re-arrange the cars to get close to their destinations. Nah... that won't work. Nothing works. Everything has something wrong with it. But here's an idea. No more small, private vehicles. Let's ban Uber. Rapist drivers. Let's build 60 passenger articulated busses and run them every 58 minutes on routes that don't go from home to work or shopping -- but between two random spots on roads chosen by the best and brightest transit planners. We won't have enough busses, but that's OK. We will later when the network effect grows our economy. Oh, but we can't run them at night because, well, we can't afford to. There's a great idea. Well, you can at least take the Paris Metro at 2am. Let's go with that.