Public Transportation is for Poor People. (suburban, downtown, subway, Boston)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not necessarily saying that public transportation is strictly for poor people, but I am saying this:
In areas where public transportation is nonexistent, or at a bare bones minimum in terms of coverage and frequency, public transportation is something that "poor people" use.
In areas where public transportation is fully comprehensive, or well above the average level of service in the country, public transportation is something that "regular people" use.
Granted these are just my thoughts and observations, but I think there is truth to them.
I used to live in Indianapolis. The public transit there is terrible. Not as bad as it could be, but certainly nowhere near, "reliable, convenient, and comprehensive". It doesn't even take advantage of it's biggest infrastructure positive: the interstates. They won't bat an eye to adding two more interstate lanes in both directions, but won't even run busses on them... even though a majority of things people use, shop at, and work at, are located just off the interstates. THE SUPER BOWL WAS HOSTED THERE AND THEY KEPT THEIR REGULAR MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY SERVICE HOURS AND FREQUENCY (i.e. service every 30-ish minutes).
Consequently, IndyGo is something that, rightly or wrongly assumed, is something that "poor people" use. Anyone who could afford it would *obviously* drive to get to their destinations.
I used to live in Muncie, Indiana. It is a college town... and quite frankly, the college is the only thing keeping that city afloat. And the college, it could certainly be argued, is the only reason why there is public transportation there. Even though it is a city that is significantly smaller than Indianapolis, area and population wise, the MITS system is much better than IndyGo. If IndyGo is "terrible", it could be said that MITS is "below adequate". It wouldn't be completely out of the ordinary to see someone in a downtown office ride the bus into work, or busses full of college kids getting to jobs/shopping/restaurants/residences.
The bus lines cover the downtown area, the campus, off campus student housing areas, major State Roads/streets, the areas that contain the most economic activity and are the most frequented by its population (both Walmarts!!!). The service can be well below half hour intervals (unlike IndyGo).
Consequently, MITS is something that more people use. There may be some stigma associated with using it (i.e. being "poor"), but it is known that some of the people who do use it have a car, could afford a car, or just don't want to use their car to get to the place they are going. Therefore, using the MITS isn't relegated to simply those who are "poor".
I live in Chicago... the city, not "Chicago, the suburbs". The public transit here is very good. Over a hundred miles of rail service through the CTA, hundreds of miles in bus routes, multiple 24 hour routes, direct rail connections to both international airports, downtown, both baseball stadiums, universities, a few suburbs, etc (not to mention the hundreds of miles of rail that Metra operates, primarily for suburban commuters). Rarely, if ever, is there a 30 minute *scheduled* wait for a particular mode of transit. Increased frequency and capacity in the face of environmental or civic events (snow storms, Air and Water Show, Lollapalooza, Taste of Chicago, New Years Eve (also free rides for that... well, technically a penny, but there's no way to collect that fare) etc.)
Hell, even the Rahmfather (the mayor) has been known to ride into the Daley Center on the Brown line from his home near the Montrose stop.
Consequently, the "poor" people ride the CTA... as do the working stiffs, the blue collar types, the white collar types, the family types, the student types, the "I'm so scared to be on a city train/bus" suburban/tourist types, and everything in-between. Every walk of life uses the public transit in Chicago. Some people may prefer their own personal vehicle, some may be a mixture of private/personal transportation, but in either case, no one except for the highest of the high horse riders believes that the CTA is for "poor people".
So what do YOU think?:
When a public transportation system is objectively lower in quality, service, and coverage, the more that system is viewed as being for "poor people"?
And when a public transportation system is objectively higher in quality, service, and coverage, the more that system is viewed as being for "regular people"?
It was difficult for me to vote because the thread title makes me want to vote "no." But I do think your assessment is correct; more people will choose to use better mass-transit.
It was difficult for me to vote because the thread title makes me want to vote "no." But I do think your assessment is correct; more people will choose to use better mass-transit.
Make sure to compare the income of public transit users with the general population of that city rather than the nation as a whole (for example, if the city is below average income, you'd expect the riders to also be below average income to).
Make sure to compare the income of public transit users with the general population of that city rather than the nation as a whole (for example, if the city is below average income, you'd expect the riders to also be below average income to).
I appreciate the link. But my point is that perceptions are what drives people to vote on, and use, public transit, to put it simply and succinctly.
Why would *I*, someone who is not "poor" and certainly don't do "poor" things like ride mass transit, want more of it in my city/town? I'm not ever going to use it because *I'm* not "poor". *I* have a car. Gas costs $4 a gallon, *I* can afford both. Hell, $5 a gallon *I* can afford.
So why spend $5 billion to put in a brand new city-wide rail system, or a new bus system? *I* don't use public transit now, why should *I* pay for something *I* don't ever foresee myself using? *I* can always afford the costs associated with using a car. So why should *I* care about public transportation? *I'm* not poor.
Compare that attitude to the Second Avenue Subway in Manhattan.
Indianapolis won't make the next public transit leap because public transit is for "the poor".
New York will take the massive, and multiple, leaps for public transit because it is something used by people other than "the poor".
Am I making sense?
Last edited by A2DAC1985; 03-05-2013 at 11:32 AM..
In my experience there is a wide range of people that ride public transportation for a variety of reasons.
I agree that in places where the transit is far below average, the only people that will take it have to take it, and generally (but not always) that reason is because they cannot afford a personal vehicle (or have to share one with a few other people).
In Boston the statement "public transportation is for poor people" is definitely false.
In Los Angeles, that statement is a little more true, but still definitely false.
Why would *I*, someone who is not "poor" and certainly don't do "poor" things like ride mass transit, want more of it in my city/town? I'm not ever going to use it because *I'm* not "poor". *I* have a car. Gas costs $4 a gallon, *I* can afford both. Hell, $5 a gallon *I* can afford.
So why spend $5 billion to put in a brand new city-wide rail system, or a new bus system? *I* don't use public transit now, why should *I* pay for something *I* don't ever foresee myself using? *I* can always afford the costs associated with using a car. So why should *I* care about public transportation? *I'm* not poor.
Am I making sense?
Maybe? While I've never heard anyone use the phrases you use above to oppose mass transit, I certainly have heard the following:
1. I don't use mass transit because it'd take 3 times as long to get to work.
2. I don't use mass transit because I need the ability to access my car either as part of my job or right after work to pick up children.
3. I don't use mass transit because my city doesn't provide it in the area in which I live and/or work.
4. I oppose spending of my tax dollars on mass transit that I can't ever take advantage of... see items 1-3 as to why.
I don't find any of these comments remotely surprising.
In my experience there is a wide range of people that ride public transportation for a variety of reasons.
I agree that in places where the transit is far below average, the only people that will take it have to take it, and generally (but not always) that reason is because they cannot afford a personal vehicle (or have to share one with a few other people).
In Boston the statement "public transportation is for poor people" is definitely false.
In Los Angeles, that statement is a little more true, but still definitely false.
Indeed.
And both of those places, Boston in particular, have a much better public transportation system in place than, I would guess, 95% of America's "cities".
Boston has the benefit of being a small city (area wise) that can cover more ground with less, as opposed to say, Jacksonville. Plus, Boston was primarily laid out before everyone took (or had the option to take) some form of powered transportation everywhere.
And for L.A., from what I have seen and read (given its size and population) it is currently "adequate", but definitely shooting for "above average" and beyond. I would also venture to guess that people who SOLELY use public transportation as their means of conveyance are not necessarily people who are decidedly "un-poor"?... and that is people who can afford the monetary costs of a car and the time in traffic, but forego their personal vehicles in favor of using public transit.
Like I said before, the mayor of Chicago has been known to use the CTA Brown line to go into the Loop (not always, but sometimes)... he can afford not to use public transit, but still chooses it from time to time because the transit here goes places, and goes to those places on a fairly frequent schedule.
What about L.A.'s mayor?
I certainly can't imagine the mayor of Indianapolis using IndyGo to get to work (because IndyGo sucks).
Hell, Jay-Z uses MTA... even going to his own concert.:
yes it is. the bart in SF was not initially middel class, but the lawyers felt welfare people and prison releasees should also ride the bart so it changed into another ghetto train.
people dont like being mugged so they dont ride the rails. same story in france.
when the streets change ridership will change and not b4. obama spending billions on public rail and ignoring this minor detail shows an utter disconnect with chicago street reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
