New businesses are choosing cities with good public transportation: study(citylab.com)
citylab.com
New businesses are choosing cities with good public transportation: study
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/07/startup-cities-public-transportation-new-business-development/594286
95 コメント
Oh, I thought startups were abandoning expensive cities for remote work and cheaper living costs.
They are. This article doesn't prove, or even show, the opposite.
(CityLab does a lot of good stuff, but they are 100% pro-dense-urban development. Independent of whether it's a bias you support, it colors the articles you'll see from them.)
(CityLab does a lot of good stuff, but they are 100% pro-dense-urban development. Independent of whether it's a bias you support, it colors the articles you'll see from them.)
I really don't think there's much movement on that front, of startups moving away from expensive cities to remote work. I'd like there to be, that'd be rad, but I haven't seen anything to that effect that's significant. Do you have a source for that assertion?
And what CityLab is, is pro-making-cities-that-aren't-garbage. There's a reason Americans marvel at how nice European cities feel when they visit, while almost no Europeans say the same thing about any US cities.
US cities have nice businesses and people and points of interest within, but the design of the cities themselves is almost always terrible.
And what CityLab is, is pro-making-cities-that-aren't-garbage. There's a reason Americans marvel at how nice European cities feel when they visit, while almost no Europeans say the same thing about any US cities.
US cities have nice businesses and people and points of interest within, but the design of the cities themselves is almost always terrible.
I know a lot of startups aggressively hiring for remote roles for devs. I can send you names if you're looking for opportunities (fair warning, most will be limited to US residents).
There are a lot of cities that seem superficially cheaper based on housing prices, but are more expensive including transportation costs, i.e. two cars per household.
I was a bit confused by this article, especially given the headline. As I read it, the research was something along the lines of: We looked at cities that are known for having a lot of startups. Some of those cities have decent transit systems. Others don't. Where there were decent transit systems, we saw businesses generally clustering around transit. (Which seems fairly obvious.) Where there wasn't decent transit, businesses couldn't very well cluster around it, could they?
I don't actually doubt the general statement that startups are tending to abandon suburban office parks for certain cities--some of which have decent transit systems and commuter rail. And there's probably some connection between transit and attractiveness to young urban-dwellers in particular. But the headline seems only sometimes true.
I don't actually doubt the general statement that startups are tending to abandon suburban office parks for certain cities--some of which have decent transit systems and commuter rail. And there's probably some connection between transit and attractiveness to young urban-dwellers in particular. But the headline seems only sometimes true.
yah, it seems the overall tide for starting businesses is toward urbanization, and a more minor effect is clustering around transit. they also say migration is more toward commuter rail stations, which seems to indicate workers are still spread out into the suburbs.
Agreed, this looks like a classic example of "correlation != causation".
It seems like this argument taken to it's final conclusion would be that startups gravitate towards cities with better transit than those that don't, which isn't the case given the Austin and San Jose examples.
It seems like this argument taken to it's final conclusion would be that startups gravitate towards cities with better transit than those that don't, which isn't the case given the Austin and San Jose examples.
And, for that matter, San Francisco is nothing to write home about.
Of course I haven't lived there in about 30 years, but when I did I think it was better than much of the U.S
Probably second in the US to NYC right?
Personally, I think Chicago's is much better than SF. But SF's is still alright and certainly better than LA (where I am now).
and i thought LA was all right, at least if you are not in the suburbs
Philly is way better than SF for transit. Maybe it's similar within the dense parts but it's 1000% better for nearby areas.
It's still much better than almost everywhere else in the US. There are only a handful of cities that are obviously better for public transit in the US.
It's amazing how it takes an hour to go anywhere in a city 7 miles x 7 miles. I guess transit's pretty good for going between the Mission and SoMa/FiDi.
I sort of wonder how much good transportation correlates with other good things that mostly young people like in their local area.
The study appears to be about businesses that are not startups in the sense that that term is used here. We've edited the headline.
Not at all surprising. Citylab is anti-car propaganda.
If by "anti-car" you mean "for a balanced mix of modes that treats cars as one viable option among several, instead of utter car dominance everywhere all the time", then this is an accurate statement.
It's amazing to me how many people feel that anything less than 99% of resources going to car-based transportation constitutes some sort of vile political agenda. "How dare anyone try to give people choices for how to get around?? Walking? With my legs?!"
It's amazing to me how many people feel that anything less than 99% of resources going to car-based transportation constitutes some sort of vile political agenda. "How dare anyone try to give people choices for how to get around?? Walking? With my legs?!"
> that treats cars as one viable option among several
Their writings hardly treat cars as one viable option as the majority of their writing is specifically against cars. How often do they criticize bicycles? Yet cars are criticized every chance they get.
It isn’t about agreeing about cars or not, but to suggest they treat cars as just another “viable” option is to admit not having spent much time reading their writings. When have they ever proposed improving anything relating to cars? Their idea of an improvement is elimination.
With the Wuhan virus, having good car infrastructure sounds pretty good right now. Yes, public transport, for sure, but the idea of ending cars is ridiculous — and CityLab promotes exactly that, albeit in couched terms. But ending cars completely would make them very happy.
Their writings hardly treat cars as one viable option as the majority of their writing is specifically against cars. How often do they criticize bicycles? Yet cars are criticized every chance they get.
It isn’t about agreeing about cars or not, but to suggest they treat cars as just another “viable” option is to admit not having spent much time reading their writings. When have they ever proposed improving anything relating to cars? Their idea of an improvement is elimination.
With the Wuhan virus, having good car infrastructure sounds pretty good right now. Yes, public transport, for sure, but the idea of ending cars is ridiculous — and CityLab promotes exactly that, albeit in couched terms. But ending cars completely would make them very happy.
They're an American site, of course they want to reduce the use of cars, cars have been hideously overpromoted in the US, resulting in insane costs for the user, crazy high costs for the government, horrible health impacts, high fatality rates, tons of unnecessary pollution, etc.
In most parts of the country, the car is literally the only viable way to make most trips. That's how much they've dominated every aspect of our transportation system.
Taking the 'position' that such a monoculture is bad, is about as political as asserting that lack of racial or gender diversity in workplaces is bad.
Do you feel bothered by sites that don't argue the other side too, that we should keep homogeneous workplaces around? Does it count as a pro-diversity 'bias' when they don't do that?
> the idea of ending cars is ridiculous
So wait, did you accuse me of not reading them because you haven't read them yourself? You see, they've never actually promoted this, and yet here you are, asserting that they have.
Reducing the use of cars in favor of other, less harmful modes sure, and car bans in some select areas, yeah. You can't walk on the freeway usually either. It's the height of absurdity to equivocate that with a total ban, anymore than saying that people who don't want me biking on the interstate don't want me biking anywhere ever.
In most parts of the country, the car is literally the only viable way to make most trips. That's how much they've dominated every aspect of our transportation system.
Taking the 'position' that such a monoculture is bad, is about as political as asserting that lack of racial or gender diversity in workplaces is bad.
Do you feel bothered by sites that don't argue the other side too, that we should keep homogeneous workplaces around? Does it count as a pro-diversity 'bias' when they don't do that?
> the idea of ending cars is ridiculous
So wait, did you accuse me of not reading them because you haven't read them yourself? You see, they've never actually promoted this, and yet here you are, asserting that they have.
Reducing the use of cars in favor of other, less harmful modes sure, and car bans in some select areas, yeah. You can't walk on the freeway usually either. It's the height of absurdity to equivocate that with a total ban, anymore than saying that people who don't want me biking on the interstate don't want me biking anywhere ever.
> Their writings hardly treat cars as one viable option as the majority of their writing is specifically against cars. How often do they criticize bicycles? Yet cars are criticized every chance they get.
Maybe this is the case because cars have far more negative externalities than other forms of transit.
Like, can you even think of a legitimate thesis for an article about the negative externalities of a bike friendly community?
> When have they ever proposed improving anything relating to cars?
I find this ironic because many things they promote, such as improving transit and bike infrastructure, will actually make driving easier and more pleasant because there will be fewer cars in the road to create traffic
Maybe this is the case because cars have far more negative externalities than other forms of transit.
Like, can you even think of a legitimate thesis for an article about the negative externalities of a bike friendly community?
> When have they ever proposed improving anything relating to cars?
I find this ironic because many things they promote, such as improving transit and bike infrastructure, will actually make driving easier and more pleasant because there will be fewer cars in the road to create traffic
You can’t optimize for both public transit and personal cars. It’s one or the other, otherwise everyone will opt for personal cars. Also, personal cars consume so much public resource such as land that it doesn’t leave any room for anything else.
> having good car infrastructure sounds pretty good right now
Right now everyone who can should be at home, so the streets shouldn't need particularly good infrastructure to handle the rest.
Right now everyone who can should be at home, so the streets shouldn't need particularly good infrastructure to handle the rest.
Agreed.
A more accurate headline would be "More businesses are started in cities that have good public transit".
But even then they are implying a causation which is a huge stretch.
A more accurate headline would be "More businesses are started in cities that have good public transit".
But even then they are implying a causation which is a huge stretch.
Transit usage has been declining for years in all of the cities listed in this article, except Austin.
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/massachusetts/massachuse...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/pennsylvania/southeaster...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/california/santa-clara-v...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/ohio/the-greater-clevela...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/texas/capital-metropolit...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/massachusetts/massachuse...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/pennsylvania/southeaster...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/california/santa-clara-v...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/ohio/the-greater-clevela...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/texas/capital-metropolit...
hi it's me caltrain, serving santa clara and growing 2x in 15 years
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/california/peninsula-cor...
https://nationaltransitdatabase.org/california/peninsula-cor...
Interesting to note that counting rides by a bounded geographic area is going to miss a lot, as the caltrain data doesn't seem to be represented in the santa clara data.
Also, the Austin data doesn't take into account that the city regularly expands its geographic boundaries (typically east and west) which may artificially make it seem as if it is increasing riders when it is simply absorbing them.
Also, the Austin data doesn't take into account that the city regularly expands its geographic boundaries (typically east and west) which may artificially make it seem as if it is increasing riders when it is simply absorbing them.
In 15 years, how much has road usage grown and how much has population grown? Just a 2x increase seems like a relative decline.
SF hasn't grown by anywhere near 2x in 15 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco%E2%80%93Oakland%...
True, but tech jobs have grown more than 4x:
Since the current expansion started in 2010, the San Francisco tech industry has more than quadrupled in size to 100,644 tech jobs as of year-end 2018.
https://www.globest.com/2019/11/13/san-francisco-has-second-...
Since the current expansion started in 2010, the San Francisco tech industry has more than quadrupled in size to 100,644 tech jobs as of year-end 2018.
https://www.globest.com/2019/11/13/san-francisco-has-second-...
I bet Massachusetts ridership wouldn't be down if they weren't experiencing crippling infrastructure atrophy.
They spent all their money on a tunnel under Boston so their infrastructure has 30ish years of deferred upgrades.
Right but "good public transit" in the context of a Citylab article means "spends a lot of tax dollars on public transit."
That's what "public" means. It's an investment in economic development and externality reduction.
I don't seem to recall a lot of private roads and highway in the USA? Most of them were public (tax dollars) and when they improve them, politics calls it a "good" improvement.
I didn't fact-check all of your links, but the first two that I randomly selected showed transit usage increasing over time.
I'm a little confused. I thought a lot of new businesses were started by immigrants who often do use / need transit and such....
I feel like there's a lot of factors here that aren't being accounted for.
I'm not sure if this isn't just "lots of new businesses in cities"...
I feel like there's a lot of factors here that aren't being accounted for.
I'm not sure if this isn't just "lots of new businesses in cities"...
> Cities With Good Transit ... San Francisco
Does not compute. San Francisco has essentially one subway line, one slow local railway line, some horrendous busses, admittedly a good airport. That's it.
Does not compute. San Francisco has essentially one subway line, one slow local railway line, some horrendous busses, admittedly a good airport. That's it.
The sad thing is that this still makes SF one of the better major cities around for public transit in the US.
Have you ever visited the east coast? Here's Boston's metro system for example.
https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/maps/2019-04-08-rap...
https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/files/maps/2019-04-08-rap...
Yes, that's why I said one of the better, not the best. There's a handful that are clearly better: NYC, DC, Boston, Philly, Chicago come to mind.
It's probably worse than that though as there are quite a few US cities with a bit of light rail plus buses that are at least as good as SF. There's reasonable transport into and out of SF via Caltrain and BART but the transit within the city is pretty limited.
Part of why transit within SF is better than average is simply that SF is very dense by American standards, so even when buses are running slowly for raw speed, the effective distance traveled in terms of possible points of interest is still pretty good. This is important, because it means the number of things reachable within a 10 or 20 or 30 minute "transitshed" is high.
Anyway, the data doesn't lie: transit usage within SF is among the highest in the country: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_hig...
> 5. San Francisco, California – 33.1%
Now, things are skewed a bit by SF being an unusually small principal city relative to its metro population. That pumps up its numbers compared to if the city boundaries included 1.5m or 2m of the metro pop, rather than ~900k.
Still though, 33% puts it near the top, and I can think of no single better metric of how useful transit is than how many people actually use transit to get around.
Anyway, the data doesn't lie: transit usage within SF is among the highest in the country: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_hig...
> 5. San Francisco, California – 33.1%
Now, things are skewed a bit by SF being an unusually small principal city relative to its metro population. That pumps up its numbers compared to if the city boundaries included 1.5m or 2m of the metro pop, rather than ~900k.
Still though, 33% puts it near the top, and I can think of no single better metric of how useful transit is than how many people actually use transit to get around.
Fair enough. I was just in Phoenix and, even though the transit system doesn't look bad on paper, in practice you quickly see that everything is so spread out that it's at least somewhat hard to get around in a reasonable time.
Yes, judging by their 2% transit mode share, I'm guessing Phoenix's transit is pretty average for the sunbelt, which is to say absolutely awful, and near-useless for most trips.
Another example of "don't just look at what's on paper": Dallas has more light rail laid down than any city in the country, at 93 miles. Which gives it a massive transit mode share of...2%. Wow. Think about how badly everything must be designed to have so much light rail that hardly anyone actually uses.
For Dallas' case, you can go to Google Maps, turn on satellite mode, and inspect some train stations, and it's pretty obvious what the problem is. The land use is horribly unconducive to walking + transit. E.g. go out a bit from the city center and you'll find stations with exclusively single-family home neighborhoods right beside, meaning almost no one can walk to/from that station to get around.
Such a waste. It's not like the government has to really build anything itself to fix that issue: only a change of rules is necessary to allow denser development in the area adjacent to the station. But America's culture around zoning is so fucked up that this is usually impossible, even after a city has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into infrastructure, we still insist on crippling it.
Another example of "don't just look at what's on paper": Dallas has more light rail laid down than any city in the country, at 93 miles. Which gives it a massive transit mode share of...2%. Wow. Think about how badly everything must be designed to have so much light rail that hardly anyone actually uses.
For Dallas' case, you can go to Google Maps, turn on satellite mode, and inspect some train stations, and it's pretty obvious what the problem is. The land use is horribly unconducive to walking + transit. E.g. go out a bit from the city center and you'll find stations with exclusively single-family home neighborhoods right beside, meaning almost no one can walk to/from that station to get around.
Such a waste. It's not like the government has to really build anything itself to fix that issue: only a change of rules is necessary to allow denser development in the area adjacent to the station. But America's culture around zoning is so fucked up that this is usually impossible, even after a city has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into infrastructure, we still insist on crippling it.
It does vary but I was in Dallas for an event a few years back. I identified a restaurant about a quarter mile from the hotel/venue. Turned out I literally could not walk there. I've had the same thing happen to me in a couple other places.
Yup, common in the US, either that or "I technically could walk there, but it looks painfully unpleasant and possibly even dangerous to do so".
Now that we live in Munich, my wife and I joke about how we used to drive from one strip mall's parking lot to go to the parking lot for the other strip mall across the street. Except, when we visit the US we still do this, because in those situations, walking across the 'road' (more like a small freeway) is incredibly awkward.
Now that we live in Munich, my wife and I joke about how we used to drive from one strip mall's parking lot to go to the parking lot for the other strip mall across the street. Except, when we visit the US we still do this, because in those situations, walking across the 'road' (more like a small freeway) is incredibly awkward.
> SF is very dense by American standards
I thought everyone here said SF wasn’t dense and needed more high-rise building? Most of SF seems just two or three stories to me when I walk around.
I thought everyone here said SF wasn’t dense and needed more high-rise building? Most of SF seems just two or three stories to me when I walk around.
Density is always a bit tricky because it's very affected by political boundaries. But, yes, SF is one of the densest US cities. [1] But people want it to be even denser (or, more accurately, they want their housing to be cheaper).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Ok so it’s like... third in the country with those qualifiers.
Wrong!
It's...fifth, actually: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_hig...
> 1. New York City, New York – 56.5%
> 2. Jersey City, New Jersey – 47.6%
> 3. Washington, D.C. – 37.4%
> 4. Boston, Massachusetts – 33.7%
> 5. San Francisco, California – 33.1%
As I noted in another comment, SF's numbers are pumped up a bit by its unusually small population size relative to its metro population size. But yeah it's still one of the top cities in the country for public transit, sad as it is.
It's...fifth, actually: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_hig...
> 1. New York City, New York – 56.5%
> 2. Jersey City, New Jersey – 47.6%
> 3. Washington, D.C. – 37.4%
> 4. Boston, Massachusetts – 33.7%
> 5. San Francisco, California – 33.1%
As I noted in another comment, SF's numbers are pumped up a bit by its unusually small population size relative to its metro population size. But yeah it's still one of the top cities in the country for public transit, sad as it is.
Huh. Visiting San Francisco from Dublin (a city with a notably _bad_ system by European standards, with 53% ridership by this metric) it would never have occurred to me it was even in the top ten. Not a great system at all.
Well, driving in SF is also pretty painful, honestly. That definitely impacts things.
I think SF still has more rail than Dublin though, right? When I visited Dublin seemed like it had almost nothing, even less than SF.
I think SF still has more rail than Dublin though, right? When I visited Dublin seemed like it had almost nothing, even less than SF.
I think the DART and Luas trains are roughly equivalent to BART. However when I was in Dublin as a tourist I was impressed with how thorough their bus network was. Part of it was that there were lots of lines and stops, but the buses were also fairly frequent. Getting rid of the "Oops, I missed my bus by 5 seconds so I have to wait 30 minutes for the next one" factor probably does a lot to increase ridership.
Coming from Munich, I was deeply disappointed by Dublin's buses. Munich's buses are actually fairly reliable, Dublin's bus timetables don't even qualify as suggestions. Often buses just wouldn't show up, period. We'd have to give up and find some other entirely different bus line going in the same general direction.
Yeah, Dublin has fairly minimal rail and tram systems, though I found SF's fairly unusable when I was there. SF's bus system seemed particularly bad, though. In many/most cases, if it was suggesting walking for 45 minutes, Google Maps couldn't do better with a public transport suggestion. This would rarely be the case in Dublin, though it does happen. It would almost never be the case in a city with actually good public transportation.
Oh I definitely wouldn't argue that SF's transit system is good. NYC's is borderline good, everything else in the US doesn't qualify for the word.
I'd put my current city, Munich, at a similar level of good-ness to NYC, though it's more impressive, having a smaller population and all. If the S-Bahn didn't have so many problems in the winter, I'd not hesitate to call it good. There'd still be plenty of room for improvement, though.
I'd put my current city, Munich, at a similar level of good-ness to NYC, though it's more impressive, having a smaller population and all. If the S-Bahn didn't have so many problems in the winter, I'd not hesitate to call it good. There'd still be plenty of room for improvement, though.
In many/most cases, if it was suggesting walking for 45 minutes
It who? A forty-five minute walk in San Francisco will take you nearly halfway across town (assuming you can walk a 15 minute mile). My break even time was closer to 20 minutes than 45 (if I didn't see a train coming I'd just walk 20 minutes to the subway).
Muni has pretty high coverage standards that allow you to get pretty much within 1/8 mile of anywhere in the city during most hours of the day. The cost is that the density of stops makes it difficult to speed up service.
It who? A forty-five minute walk in San Francisco will take you nearly halfway across town (assuming you can walk a 15 minute mile). My break even time was closer to 20 minutes than 45 (if I didn't see a train coming I'd just walk 20 minutes to the subway).
Muni has pretty high coverage standards that allow you to get pretty much within 1/8 mile of anywhere in the city during most hours of the day. The cost is that the density of stops makes it difficult to speed up service.
A thing to note is that there are major metros in the US without anything resembling a functional system at all (hi, Houston).
That's an interesting set of data in that, as you suggested upthread, doesn't really correspond to other measures of mass transit "goodness" that are more along the lines of what people think of.
Boston and SF are essentially tied--yet, the many faults of the MBTA especially in bad weather aside, it's got a pretty decent transit system. Indeed, one that isn't really that terrible relative to many European cities. And Chicago is lower, in spite of again having an even somewhat iconic transit system.
And Jersey City I would never have guessed even though it's adjacent to NYC. I wonder to what degree that reflects income levels in a dense urban environment.
Boston and SF are essentially tied--yet, the many faults of the MBTA especially in bad weather aside, it's got a pretty decent transit system. Indeed, one that isn't really that terrible relative to many European cities. And Chicago is lower, in spite of again having an even somewhat iconic transit system.
And Jersey City I would never have guessed even though it's adjacent to NYC. I wonder to what degree that reflects income levels in a dense urban environment.
That Chicago represents 28% of its metro population vs SF's 11% definitely hurts Chicago and helps SF here, if you normalized that I'm sure Chicago would come out on top (but SF would still be above average for the US, probably significantly above average).
For Jersey City, these metrics are specifically measuring commutes to work, and obviously commuting via transit to NYC there for your job is extremely common; its numbers would undoubtedly be lower if you were measuring public transit in general (though this may be true for basically all cities, honestly, so I'm not sure if that would affect the rankings).
For Jersey City, these metrics are specifically measuring commutes to work, and obviously commuting via transit to NYC there for your job is extremely common; its numbers would undoubtedly be lower if you were measuring public transit in general (though this may be true for basically all cities, honestly, so I'm not sure if that would affect the rankings).
This is in fact an excellent demonstration of how utterly meaningless commute transit mode share of a city is as a proxy for the quality of a transit system.
"How much people use public transit is meaningless when judging how useful that transit is" is certainly a hot take if I've ever seen one.
If you can think of a better single metric, by all means, let loose. I know this one's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than "miles of light rail" or anything else I've come up with before.
Something like the Paris mayor's 15-minute city -- a metric that encapsulated how reachable basic errand points are by public transit in a limited amount of time -- could be better, but would probably be fairly challenging to calculate. I'm quite confident that SF would still do pretty well using that metric, though, at least by US standards.
If you can think of a better single metric, by all means, let loose. I know this one's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than "miles of light rail" or anything else I've come up with before.
Something like the Paris mayor's 15-minute city -- a metric that encapsulated how reachable basic errand points are by public transit in a limited amount of time -- could be better, but would probably be fairly challenging to calculate. I'm quite confident that SF would still do pretty well using that metric, though, at least by US standards.
Better metrics would include:
- Looking at MSAs or CSAs rather than cities proper, since cities like SF are tiny and you get a distorted view by ignoring people that work or live outside the city
- Including non-commute usage data. A good transit system has people who use it even for leisure.
- Equitably. Systems disproportionately used by rich or poor people are bad.
- Development patterns. If real estate is cheaper near transit, that suggests the system is bad. If you pay more to be near transit, that suggests the system is valuable.
- Addressable market. A sprawling metropolitan area with lots of freeways is basically never going to have a high mass transit mode share, but a system can still be ok for the people that do use it.
A simpler and better metric here would just be ridership per capita per CSA, although even that misses a lot of important points.
- Looking at MSAs or CSAs rather than cities proper, since cities like SF are tiny and you get a distorted view by ignoring people that work or live outside the city
- Including non-commute usage data. A good transit system has people who use it even for leisure.
- Equitably. Systems disproportionately used by rich or poor people are bad.
- Development patterns. If real estate is cheaper near transit, that suggests the system is bad. If you pay more to be near transit, that suggests the system is valuable.
- Addressable market. A sprawling metropolitan area with lots of freeways is basically never going to have a high mass transit mode share, but a system can still be ok for the people that do use it.
A simpler and better metric here would just be ridership per capita per CSA, although even that misses a lot of important points.
My Indian coworker says he's never seen a worse public transit system than SF.
I have no conflicting data to offer.
I have no conflicting data to offer.
Counterpoint: almost every other US city.
Muni sucks, and it simply seems to be a matter of miss-management. Timed stops? What are those?
On the other hand BART is fairly effective, and once you're in the city a bicycle will get you from one end to the other in forty-five minutes.
On the other hand BART is fairly effective, and once you're in the city a bicycle will get you from one end to the other in forty-five minutes.
> BART is fairly effective
It only runs through one corner of the city!
It only runs through one corner of the city!
BART is fairly decent, in the limited areas it serves.
It's also not run by the city of SF, which to me explains their relative competence.
It's also not run by the city of SF, which to me explains their relative competence.
This article is confusing. How are they determining what's a "startup"? If you count a small retail, food, or tech business as a startup, then it's going to appear like there have been a lot of startups in suburbs. But more people don't consider mom and pop operations to be "startups".
I prefer to get places in my Coronavirus-ready Autonomous Rover (CAR, for short).
Being in it alone or with a few friends, family members, or co-workers means that there's an innate means of social distancing. That's also improved by the way it doesn't require hubs where many people are forced to congregate - for moderately long journeys, I can stay in my CAR all the way from my house to walking distance of my destination.
And of course, while not as fully autonomous as the name might suggest, my CAR only requires refueling every three hundred and change miles, and maintenance every five thousand or so. This provides some robustness if the infrastructure is compromised, whether by disease or other issues.
It looks like CARs might have a place in the 2020s.
Being in it alone or with a few friends, family members, or co-workers means that there's an innate means of social distancing. That's also improved by the way it doesn't require hubs where many people are forced to congregate - for moderately long journeys, I can stay in my CAR all the way from my house to walking distance of my destination.
And of course, while not as fully autonomous as the name might suggest, my CAR only requires refueling every three hundred and change miles, and maintenance every five thousand or so. This provides some robustness if the infrastructure is compromised, whether by disease or other issues.
It looks like CARs might have a place in the 2020s.
These features are useful approximately what, once a century?
The cost of infrastructure for cars far, far outweighs the cost of a few weeks of no-one working, and the pollution has caused many more deaths than Coronavirus will.
The cost of infrastructure for cars far, far outweighs the cost of a few weeks of no-one working, and the pollution has caused many more deaths than Coronavirus will.
Yes, but you get to partake of the pollution no matter whether you personally operate a car or not. So, drive away!
Externalities are a hell of a drug.
Externalities are a hell of a drug.
I'd think that the social isolation feature has benefits whenever communicable diseases are in the air, which seems to be every winter. The autonomous nature of the system means each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't.
And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes. I agree that pollution is something that needs to be addressed, which is why electric and hybrid CARs are being introduced by startups and legacy players in the industry.
And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes. I agree that pollution is something that needs to be addressed, which is why electric and hybrid CARs are being introduced by startups and legacy players in the industry.
> each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't.
Assuming there is a route without congestion. There typically isn't at rush hour in large cities. On the others hand trains have a dedicated track and thus don't have traffic problems.
> And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes.
If your transport system is good enough this isn't a problem either. In London, you're rarely more than 5-10 minutes from a tube station. And they'll likely be buses even closer. Public transport is much quicker than driving for most journeys. I think I know fewer than 5 people who own a car here.
Assuming there is a route without congestion. There typically isn't at rush hour in large cities. On the others hand trains have a dedicated track and thus don't have traffic problems.
> And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes.
If your transport system is good enough this isn't a problem either. In London, you're rarely more than 5-10 minutes from a tube station. And they'll likely be buses even closer. Public transport is much quicker than driving for most journeys. I think I know fewer than 5 people who own a car here.
Finding a route without congestion is literally impossible for trains stuck on a dedicated track. One little traffic problem shuts down the whole line, including all stations along the route. Since lines are typically connected without redundancy, a failure can partition the network into two disconnected halves.
All it takes, in one tiny little spot anywhere on the line: derailment, flood, suicide, stuck switch, malfunctioning sensor, failed motor, wrong kind of leaves on the rails, wrong kind of snow on the rails, broken signal, street-running car crash, tracks blocked off for a crime scene investigation, bomb threat...
All it takes, in one tiny little spot anywhere on the line: derailment, flood, suicide, stuck switch, malfunctioning sensor, failed motor, wrong kind of leaves on the rails, wrong kind of snow on the rails, broken signal, street-running car crash, tracks blocked off for a crime scene investigation, bomb threat...
Well sure, but in practice on a well-run line this doesn't happen very often. Especially on underground lines which don't have weather realted problems. This maybe happens to me a couple of times a year. Whereas roads often have traffic jams every day.
> I'd think that the social isolation feature has benefits whenever communicable diseases are in the air, which seems to be every winter.
Probably true, there's an advantage there.
But there's also an advantage in walking + transit, in that it helps people stay healthier.
Between the car-dominant US vs the more transit-friendly countries of Japan, Korea, and western Europe, one side has a health and lifespan advantage. And it ain't the US.
> The autonomous nature of the system means each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't.
And yet, commute times in the US are basically average compared to other developed countries. Would you care to explain that?
> And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes.
Source on transportation time actually being lower in car-dominant areas?
Probably true, there's an advantage there.
But there's also an advantage in walking + transit, in that it helps people stay healthier.
Between the car-dominant US vs the more transit-friendly countries of Japan, Korea, and western Europe, one side has a health and lifespan advantage. And it ain't the US.
> The autonomous nature of the system means each CAR can change from road to road to route around congestion and construction, in a way that mass transit can't.
And yet, commute times in the US are basically average compared to other developed countries. Would you care to explain that?
> And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes.
Source on transportation time actually being lower in car-dominant areas?
Sorry about the delay:
https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructu...
has a chart on comparative commute times.
https://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructu...
has a chart on comparative commute times.
[deleted]
Of course, the lack of exercise which tends to be enabled/encouraged by using a CAR kills a lot more people than infectious diseases do.
> And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes
I suppose this depends on where you are, really. This may very well not be the case in a large city with segregated rail/light rail/bus. Also, of course, you'd have to find a place to leave your CAR; no small feat in a large city.
> And of course, the time saved by being able to go from point to point rather than through mass transit hubs quickly adds up to many lifetimes
I suppose this depends on where you are, really. This may very well not be the case in a large city with segregated rail/light rail/bus. Also, of course, you'd have to find a place to leave your CAR; no small feat in a large city.
Correlation is not causation? A better guess would be that businesses are choosing places where the next generation of employees wants to live and work... happens to be cities on the coasts that also have public transit systems.
Many big businesses are also citing the existence of public transit as a reason for relocating to a new city. Of course there are usually tens or hundreds of million in subsidies and gifts when they relocate so it's hard to know if transit is truly important or a bit of obfuscation for their real motives.
Why the hell wouldn't you take that into account, alongside a raft of other factors?
This just in: people flock to cities, which then have the tax base to justify additional bond sales to fund further construction. Also, positive feedback loops exist. In other news, bread is now available pre-sliced.
Yeah I don't understand why we needed a study for this.
Why would a business start in places that are hard to get to ?
Why would a business start in places that are hard to get to ?
I remember reading an article in NewGeography (which is often a counterpoint to CityLab, so take both with a grain of salt) discussing the Los Angeles subway expansion. LA actually saw declining use as the subway expanded, and this was mostly chalked up to lower income people being better able to afford a car and therefore not related to the subway expansion.
However another theory was that LA subway expansion is often accompanied by gentrification near stations. This makes the train less accessible for low income people, who are most likely to use it. In this way public transit could increasingly be a luxury good, chosen for the lifestyle benefits (no fighting traffic) rather than economic necessity.
For a very niche audience I think this is true, and this audience has a lot of overlap with startups.
However another theory was that LA subway expansion is often accompanied by gentrification near stations. This makes the train less accessible for low income people, who are most likely to use it. In this way public transit could increasingly be a luxury good, chosen for the lifestyle benefits (no fighting traffic) rather than economic necessity.
For a very niche audience I think this is true, and this audience has a lot of overlap with startups.
The title I'm seeing on the article is "Startups Are Abandoning Suburbs for Cities With Good Transit" which seems to more accurately represent the study compared to the current HN title: "New businesses are choosing cities with good public transportation: study"
That isn't good.
We're trying to slow a pandemic. Until we get a vaccine, public transportation shouldn't be running.
We're trying to slow a pandemic. Until we get a vaccine, public transportation shouldn't be running.