I think we've beaten this one to death before, but there are a lot of issues here:
Public transport (in the US) often: - doesn't go where you're going - doesn't go when you want to go (and come back) - doesn't go as fast as your car
In the cases where these things are not true, public transport is popular, even by 'professionals' ...
+ express busses ... packed with commuters + main corridor subways which avoid surface traffic ... packed
For a while a few years ago, I used BART + bus to get to work. The BART ride was decently efficient, and (at commute times) faster than driving. But the bus connection was spotty: late busses, full busses that pass you, stop-n-go traffic that makes you think walking would be better (but due to the hills, isn't). BART was about 85% of the distance but took only 50% of the total time. I finally bought a little 2-seat pickup truck (which, with a 2nd passenger, can get into the diamond lanes -- 3 is required otherwise) and could get there in half the time.
Wojtek says:
> in my experience it is more about
> security and stupidity and perhaps fear too.
There are some people like that, but not enough to fill all the busses out there. They are not the people who aren't well served by public transportation, and thus aren't worth even bringing up in conversation. The thing that will increase ridership is not a change in those people's outlook on life. The things that will increase ridership are:
- Better routing and scheduling
http://www.actransit.org/riderinfo/sanpablo.wu - Additional $ incentives in the form of discounts and tax breaks
http://www.actransit.org/news/articledetail.wu?articleid=84190f64 - Better cross-agency coordination for connections
Of course the main bus terminal in SF doesn't have a direct connection
to BART, CalTrain, or the Ferries . . . - Technology enhancers for rider awareness
http://www.actransit.org/riderinfo/nextbus.wu
Woj blames people rather than the structures that are meant to serve them.
Feh.
/jordan