The PR of Mass Transit

[IronTiger]

One of the frustrating things about the United States, as you may know, is the general reluctance of mass transit. Europe has its trains, but there's just no analogue to that in the United States, and it's a bit sad that mass transit just isn't as popular as we would like.

 

A lot of this manifests as some sort of attack on highways and the private automobile, and with that belief, it's easy to see conflicts come into play in mass transit and mass transit funding. However, I decided to take a step back and try to see the bigger picture--why aren't people riding more mass transit?

 

I think part of the problem is it has a bad reputation.

 

Trains, of course, have been discussed more times than we can count, and trains have the unfortunate problem of requiring density to really cook, which is why it works in Europe, India, and the Northeast but not so much here. Even so, buses are the more economical choice in so many instances. But buses, as you may know, have a pretty poor reputation. 

 

This article on Megabus kind of explains a lot of the problems and solutions. It goes onto state a brief history of the bus in America.

 

A generation and a half ago, more than 2,000 Greyhound, Trailways, and other intercity buses crisscrossed America's roads, linking some 15,000 communities. The bus remained a national icon—a conveyor of adventure, homecomings, and fresh starts. An early ad for Greyhound Lines promised "all the color and romance, all the scenic and historic interest of this American Wonderland are yours to enjoy when you go the Greyhound Way." It was Greyhound, with its $99-for-99-days deal, that allowed many foreign visitors and young Americans to explore the vastness of the country.

Women, too, frequently traveled alone on buses. The Big Band-era ditty  promised that a single lady riding coach, rather than being harassed or scared, might find a charming companion seated next to her: "Soon the sun disappeared from view/The stars came out as they always do/And then I cuddled up next to you." Bus travel, though, began to fade as car ownership and air travel increased, and inner cities, where the terminals were located, decayed. After 1960, ridership steadily decreased, and routes were slashed. The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that the number of riders dropped from 140 million in 1960 to 40 million in 1990, the year Greyhound filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection—and the figure sank further over the next 16 years. By then bus travel had acquired the stigma of second-class citizenship, the transport of last resort. The back seat of a Greyhound bus was the kind of place a derelict like Ratso Rizzo, Dustin Hoffman's character in Midnight Cowboy, would go to die.

Both inter-city and intra-city bus service has suffered, and now, most people who can afford it avoid the bus system. The purpose of this thread is to not to get another tired rails/highways discussion but rather to improve buses (and mass transit as a whole) by talking about it.

One of the biggest problems is a lack of security on buses. Remember the AC Transit bus fight? That never should've gotten escalated to the point where punches were thrown, and that's the type of crap that cause people to stop riding (specifically, the woman seen in the video dubbed "Amber Lamps" was ID'd later on a Facebook posting saying she wouldn't ride on the bus again).

What do you think could improve the PR of buses and by extension mass transit? Try to keep it positive!

Edited October 14, 2014 by IronTiger

[Dakota79]

One of the frustrating things about the United States, as you may know, is the general reluctance of mass transit. Europe has its trains, but there's just no analogue to that in the United States, and it's a bit sad that mass transit just isn't as popular as we would like.

A lot of this manifests as some sort of attack on highways and the private automobile, and with that belief, it's easy to see conflicts come into play in mass transit and mass transit funding. However, I decided to take a step back and try to see the bigger picture--why aren't people riding more mass transit?

I think part of the problem is it has a bad reputation.

Trains, of course, have been discussed more times than we can count, and trains have the unfortunate problem of requiring density to really cook, which is why it works in Europe, India, and the Northeast but not so much here. Even so, buses are the more economical choice in so many instances. But buses, as you may know, have a pretty poor reputation.

This article on Megabus kind of explains a lot of the problems and solutions. It goes onto state a brief history of the bus in America.

Both inter-city and intra-city bus service has suffered, and now, most people who can afford it avoid the bus system. The purpose of this thread is to not to get another tired rails/highways discussion but rather to improve buses (and mass transit as a whole) by talking about it.

One of the biggest problems is a lack of security on buses. Remember the AC Transit bus fight? That never should've gotten escalated to the point where punches were thrown, and that's the type of crap that cause people to stop riding (specifically, the woman seen in the video dubbed "Amber Lamps" was ID'd later on a Facebook posting saying she wouldn't ride on the bus again).

What do you think could improve the PR of buses and by extension mass transit? Try to keep it positive!

I agree with your entire post. I think what would improve our chances of mass transit are 3 fold.

#1 - More out of state or international people calling Houston Home.

#2 - Parking and congestion getting bad (and expensive) enough for people to be forced to abandon their cars for even a few of their weekly trips.

# 3 - new politicians (or even the current ones) along with the average Houstonian traveling outside their comfort zone to cities that have mass transit and thereby seeing how great it is.

I understand we wouldn't use mass transit for every trip. But if I could get to the galleria in 20 minutes from upper Kirby everytime, or to IAH in 40 minutes everytime by utilizing a train you can bet I would choose to do so. It's pitiful that we are still talking about this 34 years later!

[Dakota79]

One of the frustrating things about the United States, as you may know, is the general reluctance of mass transit. Europe has its trains, but there's just no analogue to that in the United States, and it's a bit sad that mass transit just isn't as popular as we would like.

A lot of this manifests as some sort of attack on highways and the private automobile, and with that belief, it's easy to see conflicts come into play in mass transit and mass transit funding. However, I decided to take a step back and try to see the bigger picture--why aren't people riding more mass transit?

I think part of the problem is it has a bad reputation.

Trains, of course, have been discussed more times than we can count, and trains have the unfortunate problem of requiring density to really cook, which is why it works in Europe, India, and the Northeast but not so much here. Even so, buses are the more economical choice in so many instances. But buses, as you may know, have a pretty poor reputation.

This article on Megabus kind of explains a lot of the problems and solutions. It goes onto state a brief history of the bus in America.

Both inter-city and intra-city bus service has suffered, and now, most people who can afford it avoid the bus system. The purpose of this thread is to not to get another tired rails/highways discussion but rather to improve buses (and mass transit as a whole) by talking about it.

One of the biggest problems is a lack of security on buses. Remember the AC Transit bus fight? That never should've gotten escalated to the point where punches were thrown, and that's the type of crap that cause people to stop riding (specifically, the woman seen in the video dubbed "Amber Lamps" was ID'd later on a Facebook posting saying she wouldn't ride on the bus again).

What do you think could improve the PR of buses and by extension mass transit? Try to keep it positive!

I agree with your entire post. I think what would improve our chances of mass transit are 3 fold.

#1 - More out of state or international people calling Houston Home.

#2 - Parking and congestion getting bad (and expensive) enough for people to be forced to abandon their cars for even a few of their weekly trips.

# 3 - new politicians (or even the current ones) along with the average Houstonian traveling outside their comfort zone to cities that have mass transit and thereby seeing how great it is.

I understand we wouldn't use mass transit for every trip. But if I could get to the galleria in 20 minutes from upper Kirby everytime, or to IAH in 40 minutes everytime by utilizing a train you can bet I would choose to do so. It's pitiful that we are still talking about this 34 years later!

[IronTiger]

There's two more things that I want to elaborate on:

1. Remember that Italian guy I mentioned in the "Houston and Tourists" thread? Well, he also mentioned his less-than-fun bus ride to another part of town, and he said that he was the "only white guy there" (and his skin is considerably darker than most "white people") and basically talked about the feeling of being not welcome.

Trying to convince people to "go outside their comfort zone" isn't going to cut it. Even if people decided to try it, any negative experiences will just dissuade people from riding it or confirm what they've heard. METRO (or other transit agencies) need to breed a feeling of safety, comfort, and cleanliness, which buses have scored poorly in (and still do badly in in many inner-city locations).

2. I think another thing that harms mass transit is an obsession on ridership numbers. This indirectly causes suburbanites to not ride mass transit at all, simply because MT isn't accessible (best chance for a park and ride to the inner city). With mass transit either non-existent or inaccessible, suburbanites will of course take the freeways and private automobiles on most occasions. (Who can blame them?)This of course reinforces the whole "buses/mass transit are for minorities and the dregs of society" stigma. By providing more access, even suburbanites can "join the party" and improve the PR, thus (eventually) increasing ridership.

[urban909]

These aren't necessarily "PR", more attributes that will/could lead to a changing perspective on mass transit:

1. A generational shift (i.e. Millennial's) that have moved away from owning a car and need/want to rely on alternative transportation options

2. Worsening traffic conditions that will force people to reconsider how we get around the city

[IronTiger]

These aren't necessarily "PR", more attributes that will/could lead to a changing perspective on mass transit:

1. A generational shift (i.e. Millennial's) that have moved away from owning a car and need/want to rely on alternative transportation options

2. Worsening traffic conditions that will force people to reconsider how we get around the city

Well, #1 can help--but if buses and mass transit continue with crap like "disorderly conduct" and other shenanigans, it won't produce long-term riders. Young Millennial-age hipsters like Ms. "Lamps" may take the bus (even after college), but again, if the buses are bad enough, then they'll try to rely on friends with cars or get a bike.

However, trying to just wait until traffic gets worse and hope that the masses get on mass transit is a pretty terrible approach and ties into more of the "I hate private automobiles" mindset. It also doesn't help the problems of the existing bus system.

It's not just intra-city: buses have terrible scheduling even here in the Texas Triangle and the terminals are generally dirty and run-down. To illustrate, said friend did try to get a trip to Austin via bus, but it takes 7 or so hours and includes a 4-5 hour layover in Waco. A route going way out of the way doesn't help. A reason why Amtrak failed in College Station, as well was also due to poor scheduling: the trains never ran on Saturday, ruining any plans like going up for the game or down to Houston for a weekend, too bad! As for being "run-down", for years, the bus terminal was located in a converted UtoteM store.

I think that the general sketchiness of the bus system is why the "airport direct" line failed when tested by METRO. Had it been a private shuttle, it might've worked. But the bus system just has a bad rep.

[urban909]

However, trying to just wait until traffic gets worse and hope that the masses get on mass transit is a pretty terrible approach and ties into more of the "I hate private automobiles" mindset. It also doesn't help the problems of the existing bus system.

 

 

I don't think this is a good approach either. What I meant was I don't foresee too much of a change in attitude until traffic truly worsens, which in turn will force more of a conversation about using/expanding mass transit.  

 

Edited October 14, 2014 by urban909

[IronTiger]

I don't think this is a good approach either. What I meant was I don't foresee too much of a change in attitude until traffic truly worsens, which in turn will force more of a conversation about using/expanding mass transit.

Traffic could worsen, but while some demand "trains now before it's too late", I think it neglects bus systems, the real backbone of the system. And even if you don't add transit out to the suburbs, more people still drive cars, even in the city.

While cars will probably be the preferred source of transportation for an indefinite period of time, we should improve the bus system, and try to actually find out why people don't ride the buses:

It doesn't go where you want to go? Create better transit routes.

It's unsafe? Add security.

It's dirty? Clean the buses up, getting new ones if necessary.

It's too crowded? Run more buses in those routes.

The other reason the "wait until traffic worsens" idea is a poor reason for forcing mass transit is that reinforces the idea that mass transit is a "last resort" type option, which is what it's tended to be for the last 30-40 years.

[Slick Vik]

Well, #1 can help--but if buses and mass transit continue with crap like "disorderly conduct" and other shenanigans, it won't produce long-term riders. Young Millennial-age hipsters like Ms. "Lamps" may take the bus (even after college), but again, if the buses are bad enough, then they'll try to rely on friends with cars or get a bike.

However, trying to just wait until traffic gets worse and hope that the masses get on mass transit is a pretty terrible approach and ties into more of the "I hate private automobiles" mindset. It also doesn't help the problems of the existing bus system.

It's not just intra-city: buses have terrible scheduling even here in the Texas Triangle and the terminals are generally dirty and run-down. To illustrate, said friend did try to get a trip to Austin via bus, but it takes 7 or so hours and includes a 4-5 hour layover in Waco. A route going way out of the way doesn't help. A reason why Amtrak failed in College Station, as well was also due to poor scheduling: the trains never ran on Saturday, ruining any plans like going up for the game or down to Houston for a weekend, too bad! As for being "run-down", for years, the bus terminal was located in a converted UtoteM store.

I think that the general sketchiness of the bus system is why the "airport direct" line failed when tested by METRO. Had it been a private shuttle, it might've worked. But the bus system just has a bad rep.

1. Some bus stops are sketchy but I've never had a strange experience on a bus. In Austin it was worse with all the drunks.

2. Airport direct failed because it wasn't allowed to advertise. Supershuttle filed a successful lawsuit that didn't let metro advertise except at one desk in terminal c. Nobody really knew about it.

[JLWM8609]

Traffic could worsen, but while some demand "trains now before it's too late", I think it neglects bus systems, the real backbone of the system. And even if you don't add transit out to the suburbs, more people still drive cars, even in the city.

While cars will probably be the preferred source of transportation for an indefinite period of time, we should improve the bus system, and try to actually find out why people don't ride the buses:

It doesn't go where you want to go? Create better transit routes.

It's unsafe? Add security.

It's dirty? Clean the buses up, getting new ones if necessary.

It's too crowded? Run more buses in those routes.

The other reason the "wait until traffic worsens" idea is a poor reason for forcing mass transit is that reinforces the idea that mass transit is a "last resort" type option, which is what it's tended to be for the last 30-40 years.

 

METRO is working on a new route plan now that'll completely re-route many routes. Apparently, these new routes will be run to take people where they want to go.

http://transitsystemreimagining.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Reimagined-Network-Map-0827.pdf

Edited October 15, 2014 by JLWM8609

[IronTiger]

I know METRO's taking baby steps, but as a whole, across the nation, mass transit could use a lot of work!

[samagon]

These aren't necessarily "PR", more attributes that will/could lead to a changing perspective on mass transit:

1. A generational shift (i.e. Millennial's) that have moved away from owning a car and need/want to rely on alternative transportation options

2. Worsening traffic conditions that will force people to reconsider how we get around the city

 

People, whether of a certain generation or not that want to take public transit will do so. If they have a bad enough experience, or enough bad experiences, they will explore other options. 

 

A lot more kids now choose not to get a car in high school, or even college, when it was a priority for people all the way through the early 90s that they have taken drivers ed by 15, and own a car on their 16th birthday. That's absolutely a fact, but don't let that fool you into believing that they don't eventually wake up to the realization that as soon as they get out of college it's very impractical in some places to not own a car. Those that persevere, still if they have bad enough experiences, they will end up in a car. 

 

They will be the first to abandon that car again if things change, and others will follow.

[Hasek]

I hate buses. if i wanted to sit in traffic smelling diesel fumes i could do it i my own car, rail should be the backbone of any mass transit system with small buses being used as feeders

 

the biggest issue is american don't want to pay their taxes, then delicate flower about Gov services being sub-par. Mass transit reform needs to be shoved down peoples throats with a "you'll tank me later"

[gmac]

I have probably brought it up in other threads, but I used mass transit daily for 10 years earlier in my life. At that time it was a little bit easier and cheaper than other methods of transport. Not so now. Was it always convenient? No. Was it always pleasant? No.

 

But it was useful in a tightly-packed city with a long history of public transport.

 

Houston ain't that city.

 

I can think of a couple great ad slogans for Metro's bus system, though...

 

"Got time? Boy oh boy do we have a bus for you!"

"Lonely? Want to meet new people? Hop aboard!"

[samagon]

I had a neighbor that was a masseuse in the Galleria area. He didn't own a car and he'd ride the bus every day. I live in Eastwood. I asked him about it one day. He just shrugged. He said sometimes he had to call metro and get a driver in trouble cause he'd be at the bus stop and the driver would just skip the stop. He would be on the bus and the driver would just take a different street than he was supposed to be on, skipping stops. This made it a grand adventure, and he always planned to be at work 45 minutes early and would show up on time most days.

 

I wouldn't be able to do it. You have to really want to have that lifestyle to do it.

 

Edit: but then, from his point of view, you really have to dedicate yourself to the lifestyle of owning a car, and spending some percentage of your yearly budget on a car....

Edited October 16, 2014 by samagon

[jgriff]

I rode the bus for almost 5 years, 2.5 to downtown and 2.5 to the Galleria. I live in the Memorial Villages area. I rode the bus so that I could own a Ferrari and not have to drive it to work everyday. 

 

The bus that took me to work in the morning was almost always on time and never skipped me. I only remember it being significantly late once. This was due to the bus breaking down. They sent another out as soon as they could. 

 

Downtown was a much shorter ride since it was a straight shot on one bus. This also saved me the $130 a month I would have been spending on a parking spot downtown. 

 

The Galleria was a longer ride even though it was half the distance. I had to ride to the Northwest Transit center and wait there for a bus that took me into the Galleria area. This bus went mostly down Post Oak. In the mornings it was OK but in the afternoons on the way home it wasn't. The traffic on Post Oak was so bad that the bus was always late, that made me miss the bus at the Transit Center. Sometimes it would take me an hour and a half to get to my house that was only 5.5 miles from my work. If we had a dedicated bus lane or light rail on Post Oak it would have made my ride much easier. Of course light rail down Post Oak would cost an enormous amount of money. I really didn't see many people on that bus route. My bus was never full. I guess it would be a little selfish of me to expect other people to pay for a super expensive light rail project so that I could save miles on my Ferrari and get home a little faster

Edited October 16, 2014 by jgriff

[Sparrow]

When it comes to mass transit, trains are viewed more highly than buses. Most everyone seems to agree. How about making bus routes (at least the new high frequency routes METRO will begin next summer) more like the light rail? Improve the bus shelters to be more like station platforms. Have patrons pay at the stop instead of on the bus (would increase speed of service too). Reconfigure buses to look like light rail cars inside. Paint buses using the same scheme as the light rail cars. Create signage that shows the patrons at the bus stop/platform when the next bus arrives for each route (GPS anyone?).

 

In a nut shell, make it so you can't tell the difference between the two services. That would improve the public image of mass transit.

[IronTiger]

When it comes to mass transit, trains are viewed more highly than buses. Most everyone seems to agree. How about making bus routes (at least the new high frequency routes METRO will begin next summer) more like the light rail? Improve the bus shelters to be more like station platforms. Have patrons pay at the stop instead of on the bus (would increase speed of service too). Reconfigure buses to look like light rail cars inside. Paint buses using the same scheme as the light rail cars. Create signage that shows the patrons at the bus stop/platform when the next bus arrives for each route (GPS anyone?).

In a nut shell, make it so you can't tell the difference between the two services. That would improve the public image of mass transit.

I like your thinking.