[mitthrowaway2]

But reducing traffic directly solves one of the major problems with public transportation, because it reduces commute times for buses and lets them keep a schedule more predictably, improving transfer times and reducing waits.

Increased ridership (as people are pushed to alternatives from cars) also leads to increased bus frequency, which also greatly improves the experience for all riders.

So it's actually a big step towards solving some of the major problems with public transit, but of course not exclusive with other steps being taken too.

Plus, reduced car traffic directly increases comfort and safety for walking and cycling as well.

[autoexec]

I agree, it's a good goal. It should come by giving people a reason to choose public transportation first though. You'd still get all the benefits, without pissing off people who understandably don't want their lives to be worse so that eventually public transportation can get better.

Punishing drivers until they have no choice but to accept that their lives will be worse is not a good way to promote public transportation, even if you pinkie promise that the pain will lessen over years/decades.

It's not necessary to strong arm people into using alternatives to cars if you make those alternatives genuinely better for more and more people in an increasing number of situations. As people naturally choose the path of least resistance, everything just gets better for everyone.

[mitthrowaway2]

I'm not sure that's possible. The space of policies that improve car alternatives without a perception of negatively impacting drivers is very narrow. That rules out bus priority lanes, protected bike lanes, gas and parking surcharges to fund transit, modal filters, advance walk signals...

Even when those policies actually improve the driving experience by getting more people out of cars and reducing congestion for the remaining drivers, many drivers don't tend to compare against the counterfactual where those road users become car traffic blocking their way when evaluating the impact of those policies on their drive. They just see bike and bus lanes being prioritized and react like it's a war against cars.

So how do you imagine that transit can be improved, without drivers reacting like they're being punished?

[autoexec]

> So how do you imagine that transit can be improved, without drivers reacting like they're being punished?

I'd start by holding off on policies like congestion pricing, narrowing lanes, refusing to add/update roads where needed, and eliminating parking options. These things do nothing to make alternatives more attractive, even if they strong arm more people into using them.

From what I've seen of public transport options around the country, there is a ton of room for improvement that would go a long way to help without punishing drivers.

Generally buses should try to minimize wait time on busy routes, routes and schedules should be clear and consistent, transfers should be minimized and when needed there should be no wait times going from one line to another. Most importantly I wouldn't put as much emphasis on buses as I would on trains since they move way more people much faster and don't compete with cars on the road or add to street traffic.

The busses and train cars themselves should be clean, well maintained, safe, and inexpensive to ride. Offering free rides for certain routes/times is a great way to get people using them even if it requires taking a loss in the short term. I wouldn't expect a new/improved public transportation system to pay for itself for a very long time. Transforming our cities and streets is a long term investment that can't happen overnight.

Busses and train cars should be comfortable and provide storage for things like bikes, bags, and groceries (bonus points if it has a freezer). Bus stops and stations should be added where possible so more people can access them by foot with less than 15 minutes of walking. They should be well lit, and provide seating, shelters, vending machines, phone chargers, trash/recycling, and information.

Bus-only lanes can be nice, but not if it means closing off lanes that would back up regular traffic. That might mean adding lanes in some cases and reclaiming them later.

Bike lanes should be added to existing roads where possible (and not by reducing lanes from already crowded streets) and be required when building new roads. Bike lanes should be well marked and protected/separated from cars. Drivers hate bikes because they have to share the same roads. Protected bike lanes actually decrease friction between bikers and drivers.

Priority should be given to bike routes that connect and travel through useful places for foot traffic. It'd be nice if they follow bus routes so that bikers can stop for rests/drinks at the the bus stops or even take the bus for parts of their trip.

The biggest thing would be to find and improve the places that would be most likely to attract people to alternatives then prioritize those sites first. Adding bike routes in a downtown area or adding bus routes that bring people into and out of the areas that are the most congested/annoying areas to drive in.

I've lived in several places that had popular areas I'd actively avoid driving into because of the cars and/or foot traffic. I'd have loved a alternative, but most of the time my options were a bus system that would have added at least an hour to my travel time and involve long walks down non-pedestrian friendly roads on top of it, or a train system that was expensive, dirty, smelled like a bathroom, and would still require a drive to the station where parking was insanely expensive and not an overly safe place to leave your vehicle. I've also been in cities overseas with great public transportation. Clean trains that ran every few minutes, a seemingly excessive number of stations a walkable distance from each other, etc.

I know good public transportation is possible. It just needs a lot of investment and tax payers hate investing in their cities while politicians are heavily lobbied by car companies not to make the situation better. A bunch of ineffective badly planned half measures only add to taxpayer/driver outrage.

[mitthrowaway2]

> These things do nothing to make alternatives more attractive

(Yes they do! I explained why a few posts above in this very thread! If you disagree, I'd appreciate if you could articulate your disagreement, rather than reiterate it!)

Even with no infrastructure upgrades, cycling becomes safer and more comfortable when more people are cycling and fewer people are driving! Transit service improves through increased ridership and less congestion, even with no attached funding increases or infrastructure projects! Taking cars off the road actually makes every method of transportation more attractive, including driving itself!

> Schedules should be clear and consistent

The #1 reason why bus schedules are not consistent is: drum roll congestion! And when it's difficult to keep a schedule, transfer waits are unavoidable. The only way to implement what you say is to either give busses dedicated lanes, or Thanos-snap cars offthe road.

> I wouldn't put as much emphasis on buses as I would on trains

I love trains too, but where are you going to run them? Trains have a large turning radius and run best with grade-separated crossings. You can tunnel the entire thing underground but that's a big project and how will you fund it? In Asia they fund it through property development but how will you do it in a city that's already been developed and had its passenger rail stripped out for highways in the 1960s?

> The busses and train cars themselves should be clean, well maintained, safe, and inexpensive to ride.

I agree! And these days I'm often opting for the car because it's cheaper than bus fare, even when I'd rather not drive. And yes, it does have to be a long-term investment, but one that will never be recouped through ticket sales. So where is the money to fund this level of service coming from? Are car-driving taxpayers who don't ride transit going to approve this much taxpayer funding? Even when those same voters are so die-hard opposed to congestion pricing?

> Bus-only lanes can be nice, but[...] adding lanes in some cases and reclaiming them later.

Are you suggesting to pave over sidewalks? Or to cut holes through buildings? I don't understand how you would add new lanes to a congested city road. I have the same question for your suggestion about bike lanes, where you suggest adding them to existing roads but not by reducing lanes. Do you propose to add elevated bikeways?

I think I don't disagree with you about how good these things are, but I must be missing something about your vision.

[autoexec]

> Even with no infrastructure upgrades, cycling becomes safer and more comfortable when more people are cycling and fewer people are driving! Transit service improves through increased ridership and less congestion, even with no attached funding increases or infrastructure projects! Taking cars off the road actually makes every method of transportation more attractive, including driving itself!

If taking public transportation adds an hour or more to your trip because you're waiting on a bus or train to show up, then taking badly planned routes to places you don't need to go making stops all along the way, then fewer cars are on the road aren't going to help you. Your life is still worse than it was driving directly to where you needed to be.

If public transportation isn't safe and you get assaulted using it or have to spend your trip sitting on urine soaked seats you're not going to care if there's less traffic for the bus driver to deal with or what traffic conditions richer people are enjoying.

Bikers probably see the most benefit from some fraction of the population being forced to use bad public transportation, but that won't make up for a lack of clear routes and dedicated lanes when the roads are still filled with cars who aren't looking out for you while you navigate dangerous intersections.

> The #1 reason why bus schedules are not consistent is: drum roll congestion!

From what I've seen the problem isn't always late times, although that can be an issue, it's things like routes only running on certain days, routes changing depending on the day, or the times they run changing day to day because cities don't want to spend the money to give them set schedules. The absolute best schedules are no schedules, where the bus/train runs every x minutes all day long going the same route so you can catch it anywhere on any day of the week and know where you'll end up. Navigating the transit system in some cities is such a huge chore there are people making 3rd party apps to try to make sense of it all.

> I love trains too, but where are you going to run them? Trains have a large turning radius and run best with grade-separated crossings. You can tunnel the entire thing underground but that's a big project and how will you fund it?

Funding is a major issue but it'll be worth it to get cars off the streets. Underground in some places is good, but more involved so you'd ideally have a mix of both. A lot of cities could see an improvement with just one line running back and forth from one end of town, through downtown, and to the other end, but it's going to cost a lot of money up front. The car industry put us way behind the rest of the developed world and we've got to eat the costs to catch up eventually.

> So where is the money to fund this level of service coming from? Are car-driving taxpayers who don't ride transit going to approve this much taxpayer funding?

The way things are now? It doesn't look good. I've seen several proposals to build up public transportation fail because people didn't want the tax burden. There's a lot of costs to the mess we have now though and a lot to be gained by putting in the money to improve the situation, but that means educating people so they know why it's important to make public transportation worth taking, and it means that people need to have enough faith in their government to do the job without just screwing tax payers over.

> Do you propose to add elevated bikeways?

I hadn't considered it but... maybe? We expand roads all the time already but to add lanes for more cars. Sometimes that means reducing the distance from the sidewalk to the street. Sometimes it means buying (or renting) property or taking it through eminent domain. If you're looking to redesign a city to no longer be centered around cars, those are the kinds of thing we'll need to be wiling to do. The alternative to redesigning transportation infrastructure for a future with less cars is to keep expanding highways and roads which requires the same thing but also kills property values.

If cities can be redesigned well enough and there are fewer cars on the roads property values should go up, and property owners would have better air quality, and less noise pollution. I think some people would happily put up with an easement or sell a couple yards of their property for that.

The ultimate goal is fewer car lanes, more space for everything else, but that means improving public transport while accommodating the cars we have until we can reclaim the space they no longer take up.