
Ask HN: Space in the market for luxury public transit? - dnsworks
To begin, I hate cars. I live in cities to get away from the car lifestyle. Still I find public transit to be lacking. Perhaps it's the homeless people defecating on the floor 4 feet from me, or maybe it's the lack of customer service, the inconvenient stops, and the entitled bus drivers, but I wish there was something "more".<p>Quite a few people I know whose average profile is 20-40 something techie, upper middle class salary, etc drive even though they live in San Francisco. They seem to have less of a tolerance for the fist fights and the public urinals than I do.<p>Virgin America has been quite a wake-up call for the aviation industry. I fly to Seattle twice a month, which means I spend a lot on airfare. I would save $6k/year if I flew on Alaska instead, but the lack of service and comfort just isn't worth the savings to me.<p>Maybe there's a market for an urban transportation system which costs 2x-3x the rate of Muni, and doesn't have any subsidized rates, as a way to draw people out of their cars?
======
jrockway
It's been done. Trains in Japan have the option of paying more for the "green
car" or a "liner" instead of the regular railcars or regular trains.

But really, how often are people actually defecating on the public transit?
Maybe one time you read an article where someone said they saw that? Either
public transit is really good in the cities I've lived in, or the problem is
you rather than it. Just sayin'.

I am in a pretty high tax bracket and I would never consider "luxury public
transit". If I don't want to take the train, I ride my bike instead. (I don't
have a driver's license.)

~~~
dnsworks
I've watched at least 4 defecations in the past year, and uncountable
urinations.. Add to that 6 or 7 fist fights, a purse snatching, and my
personal favorite, a crazy man swinging his cane at me while ranting about
homosexuals and family values.

Nevertheless, beyond my personal experiences, antidotes become facts in the
minds of people who are on the fence about something. When suburbanites hear
about problems on public transit they decide that if they take a bus in the
city, they're going to get killed, and don't use it.

~~~
daniel-cussen
I have never, ever seen defecations or urinations in my public transport
system here in Chile. The worst I've seen is two weirdos cossing someone else
out, then pulling the emergency break, then getting arrested for it.

~~~
froo
I have never, ever seen public defecations or urinations on my public
transport system either.

The worst I've seen is the odd excessively loud person and perhaps people
having sex - but that's it.

It's really not that bad, it could be like jrockway suggested: a symptom of
the OP's area rather than the public transit system.

------
sjsivak
I would think your best option is to carpool with those people who are already
driving. Luxury public transit already exists in most cities with private limo
and car services, and at least here in Boston it is very expensive compared to
the cost of a T pass. While I also hate the smell of pee (I can't say anything
about the customer service because basically everything here is automated), I
am fine with it since it is only $60 a month.

~~~
dnsworks
When I think customer service, I think of things like a driver being able to
alert you to your stop. Or even better, not purposefully accelerating and
decelerating in a manner which makes you fall down (I have a friend who is a
Muni driver who actively tries to knock people over, he says it's the
highlight of his shift). Heck, why not have bus attendants walking the aisles
to sell you beer and sandwiches, like on an airplane or a ferry?

~~~
borism
there are plenty of "business class" intercity bus services around the world,
but do you really need that "luxury" for a 30 minute commute? it might work
intra-city, but it will sure be hard sell, especially on such small scale...

maybe you should instead work to make public transit in your location more
bearable to you?

------
theli0nheart
Luxury and public are mutually exclusive.

But I definitely see there being a need for people to have an alternative to
public transit that's a tier above what there is now. I'm sure a ton of people
would sign up for that.

------
Scott_MacGregor
To begin with, I love cars. I live in cities so I can have a great lifestyle,
and to take advantage of all the city has to offer. So you and I are sort of
thinking along the same lines, but making a different choice--for different
reasons.

I love cars so much that once we get this business profitable and I get enough
income from it I will probably buy a convertible Bentley GT like this one:

[http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/glitters/b/bently_-8712...](http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/glitters/b/bently_-8712.jpg)

I am not sure if people who drive their own car vs. ride on a bus are doing it
out of any having less of a tolerance for the fistfights or other social
problems though. I think that the convenience (and for some the prestige) of
driving is why people drive rather than it being a cost point or service
issue. I do not think public transportation will ever --draw--people out of
their cars. To me it’s comparing apples to oranges.

I love having a car and would really hate having to ride a bus or train.
Although I do agree with you that public transit is lacking in some ways, in
many places the cost is subsidized by the taxpayers to keep it affordable and
it does serve to make life easier (and nicer) for people without a car.

In times past, trains used to have separate cars for 1st class, 2nd class and
3rd class. Maybe given the current political climate the cities would be
hostile to allowing a separate bus service to operate in this manner. A
separate bus service that would be viewed as superior to the buses serving the
general population might be frowned upon by the cities and for that reason be
impossible to get going. Plus, what would stop the same problem causing riders
from occasionally riding the upscale bus and causing the same problems.

~~~
lsc
while there are outliers who would never drive or who would never take public
transit, I think most of us will take the most convenient route from point A
to point B. I do think that if public transit was the most efficient way to
get from point a to point b, more people would use it. While I don't think
adding 'luxury' features would draw many riders out of cars, I do think that
if public transit was more convenient than driving, it would draw many people
out of cars.

------
lsc
#1 problem with the bus for me is that I need to pay attention. Solve that
problem (with a gps device that 'dings' when I need to get off, or the like.)
and you don't need to build more infrastructure.

Personally, if I can ride the train (caltrain here in the south bay, or BART
in the rest of the bay area) it's pretty good. I work rather than paying
attention to driving. the bus is right out, not because of the poverty, but
because I have to pay attention, else I end up at the wrong stop.

The thing is, on the train, I'm working. I've got one of those cellular modems
in my laptop, so really I don't mind that it often takes longer than driving.
In fact, I'd prefer to remove the complex 'express' schedules, as it's
difficult to figure out what train you need to be on. (the shitty PA speaker
is hard to understand, even when the conductor gives you clear instructions,
which isn't often) Also, often in many trains it is difficult to tell which
train you are in from inside the train, and the number on the cab flashes by
quickly.

~~~
jrockway
It is strange that transit agencies that have services with different stopping
patterns don't buy railcars with destination signs on them. In Chicago, Metra
Electric recently bought new railcards, and the front of the trains have
digital destination signs... but they just use the internal railway coding on
them, so normal customers have no idea which train is which. It is kind of
dumb. (Sure, _I_ figured out their code, but I don't expect that out of most
people.)

Also nice are digital signs at the stations that show which train is which,
like these:

<http://sbarnhill.mvps.org/Japan/Images/DepartureBoard.JPG>

It shows the name and destination of the next three trains, and the stations
that the next train stops at. Not sure why we don't have these in the US.

~~~
Zev
_It shows the name and destination of the next three trains, and the stations
that the next train stops at. Not sure why we don't have these in the US._

The LIRR (Long Island Rail Road) does; it shows the final destination at top
and all the stops along the way underneath. If the sign only has one line, it
scrolls to show all the stops. Most trains even have a sign in the car that
shows what the destination and next stop are.

I'll take some pictures tomorrow when I pass through it.

~~~
Zev
FWIW, <http://cld.ly/0f1o7m> (Inside a train; in this case, the Airtrain from
JFK to Jamaica) and <http://cld.ly/ed1o7n> (On the platform at Jamaica,
transferring to go to the station in my town.)

There's a few (or, at least one) other picture, but thats on my phone (non-
smartphone, so its a big of a dance to get pictures off of it).

------
Mz
When I was living in the SF Bay Area, I took a class on 'Homelessness and
Public Policy' from an SF college. My recollection: There were about as many
homeless people in SF at that time as in NY and NY is quite a lot larger,
population-wise. That is probably part of why you see so much crap (literally
and figuratively, I guess) on SF public transit.

I would be all for improving public transit in the US. I currently live
without a car and I don't want to ever go back to owning a car or driving one.
Yet I basically don't use public transit because, where I live, 'you can't get
there from here'. (Ex: There is a bus stop maybe 15 minutes from my apartment
and a bus stop maybe 10 or 15 minutes from my office. You can't get there from
here by bus, except possibly by going an hour downtown, changing buses, and
coming back. I can walk it in less time than that.)

------
gojomo
I believe there is such a market, but you'd have a hard time serving it given
the power that MUNI and the cab industry have over municipal transport
regulation.

Cabs are a 'luxury' option costing 3x-15x MUNI for similar trip lengths -- and
incumbent cabbies already politically limit the entry of new cabs. So, they
would hardly sit still for the creation of another cost-competitive transport
category.

Similarly, the same political force (and romanticized vision of public
transit) that insulates MUNI and its employees from much accountability can
also work to insulate them from real competition. "Don't license this new
'luxury' service! It'll destroy MUNI, leaving the city with bigger transit
deficits and the poorest with even fewer options."

------
bravura
I would rephrase this question as: How do we make public transportation more
convenient?

The price of convenience is increased cost, which leads to fewer customers. So
luxury will be a by-product of your approach, at least initially.

But yes, I really want more convenient public transit.

~~~
rue
_> The price of convenience is increased cost, which leads to fewer
customers._

Yes and no; all public transportation in the U.S. save a few exceptions is
vastly _underused_ in my experience. An influx of people to meet even expanded
capacity would also mean more revenue...with sufficient patronage, convenience
and coverage can be increased without bringing up the price much (if at all.)

~~~
sigstoat
transit usage in the denver area jumped with the gas prices, and the cost of
rides increased repeatedly, and more than the gas prices increased, as far as
i could tell.

~~~
rue
I am sure it did. I do not see, however, what that has to do with
capacity/patronage?

------
pstuart
Sounds like a jitney. Add in onboard wifi, the ability to request pickup via
geo-enabled sms.

Bigger question is how much would such a service cost to be profitable to run,
and would people pay that much?

------
mixmax
Get a bike. It's healthy, it's cheap and it's environmentally sound.

~~~
teej
While I appreciate the sentiment, biking in San Francisco is far too risky.
The time savings vs walking isn't worth the health implications and the stuff
you have to carry on you.

~~~
rue
While I appreciate _that_ sentiment, there are places other than San
Francisco! Still, actual good public transportation is probably a better first
step than trying to get everyone to ride.

------
daniel-cussen
It exists in Brazil. It is in buses; you pay twice as much and it has air
conditioning and more comfortable seats.

It also exists on the Paris metro.

~~~
thirdusername
They did away with the first class metro wagons in '91 in Paris and unless
they've reinstated them since this summer (when I was there), I think you are
mistaken.

~~~
daniel-cussen
I heard about the first class wagons secondhand, and when I went I only saw
first class on the trains. I guess you're right.

------
rdl
I drive even when I live in San Francisco. A (nice) car costs about $1k/mo to
keep in SF (parking, registration, insurance, payment) before the first mile
driven, but it is how I would spend my marginal $1k at $5k/mo.

1) I need 24x7 access to datacenters, some of which are in super sketchy parts
of town (200 Paul, in HP) or are in the South Bay. A taxi might be an option,
but a couple $200 taxi rides per month, plus an hour of waiting, would be a
real pain.

2) I enjoy going on long trips, by land, with minimal planning. Rental cars
are more cost effective with depreciation, but I like having a familiar car,
very well maintained, and keeping my firearms/EMT kit/etc. pre-positioned in
the vehicle. I'd consider flying, but my circle of equal pain makes driving to
LA a 100%, and driving to vegas kind of borderline. I drive to Portland or
Seattle even. Avoiding the hassle of the airport, more cargo capacity, and
having a familiar vehicle on the other end, all add up.

3) Shooting sports. Going to a shooting range with a long-arm on public
transit is a no-go :) Also, try taking 50 pounds of ammo on the bus.

4) Grocery shopping and other routine chores -- zipcar could accomplish a lot
of this (and I have zipcared a pickup truck a few times, although their
maintenance leaves a lot to be desired)

5) I love cars and driving, although not so much in SF itself. Parking in SF
largely makes driving in SF unpleasant.

6) I enjoy having more stuff with me than I can comfortably carry, and the car
serves as a portable locker. Having a spare laptop battery, paper, cases of
bottled water, etc. a quick trip to the car away is nice. Plus, while it's
slightly paranoid, having a vehicle with emergency supplies nearby, and a
means of travel, radio, power source, etc. is reassuring -- if there were an
earthquake or other disaster, there's a limit to what survival supplies I
might have on my person, but my car is good for 96h.

If I were commuting between SFO and SEA a lot, I'd probably buy a second car
and keep one on each end, just to avoid needing public transit. (and someday
I'd go for a plane!)

None of this would be solved by a plush seat (like 1st class) or lack of crazy
people and urine smell (like cabs vs. muni). I am probably an outlier in the
combination of these, but not on each individual point.

I do try to avoid needing a long daily commute, either through wfh or living
near the office, so I can keep the car parked and walk to/from the office.
Still, I'd prefer a 10 minute drive to a 60-90 minute muni/bart/caltrain
adventure to get to/from the office!

~~~
pbhjpbhj
If you don't have kids then a scooter is a very good option. I used to travel
a 10mile commute once a week including winter (in the UK) - I couldn't afford
special clothing except the warm "lobster claw" gloves. My wife and I shared
the scooter and with a back box it could do our weekly shop in a single trip;
125cc was essential to be able to get up some of the hills here with 2up and a
back box full of goodies.

