That’s our goal here in CA. To give people options other than driving that will get them where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time and at an affordable cost. We tried the cars-only approach and it has totally failed for California. I don’t think any of the transit advocates or bloggers want to do away with private automobile transport, we just want to give people the option of doing something else, an option very few Californians have right now. And in the absence of those alternatives, family budgets are breaking and the state’s economy is in a tailspin.

Seems to me folks already ARE using transit – the problem now isn’t attitudinal, but practical. We need more transit service. More transit infrastructure. More trains. Most regions of our state know what is needed and where it needs to go – they just need the money.

The question before us isn’t whether the system can handle it or whether government can provide enough money, but whether Californians will abandon the failed tax and spending priorities of the last 30 years and instead help their government invest in the transit that everyone now wants?

I understand your point, but if what you’re suggesting is that we ignore the fact that 70 percent of commuters are solo drivers, that people don’t ride the bus because of its socioeconomic stigma or that one’s car/assault vehicle is a reflection of one’s lifestyle, I strongly disagree. Just on principle, I don’t like glossing over reality, no matter how ugly. From the persepective of wanting to get more people to use transit, you first have to recognize these facts if you want to help achieve that goal.

The way things are going, however, this argument may be moot. I got onto my post-peak trains last night and this morning to find them crowded, which they never are at those times of day except during the holidays.

The Sacramento Bee (provided free on the Capitol Corridor) has a story today on the ridership phenomenon and the problems it poses:
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/886115.html

What we’re facing is a surging demand for transit that our system very likely can’t handle and a government that’s unlikely to put provide enough money to correct that.

I have no quarrel with the idea that Californians snub their noses at today’s transit. We also dislike root canal work. But transit doesn’t have to be as bad as it is. All we need do is develop it to the same degree we’ve developed every aspect of so-called “car culture.” Instead we starve transit in the name of “efficiency” and then express surprise when the public responds by not using it. The media’s conclusion from this is that Californians don’t use transit because of some hereditary condition, when the real story may be that the transit product has been allowed to deteriorate into something only a masochist can justify using.

The great wonder to me is how successful transit is, despite its limitations. Its as if you put Coca Cola on a store shelf next to bottled donkey urine, and despite charging more for the latter, it actually competed, in some markets, with the Coke. Transit actually carries as many people from the East Bay to San Francisco as cars do. One in four North Bay commuters to San Francisco use transit to get there. Nehi should be so competitive. Bay Area transit ridership may not have improved over the last 25 years, but the systems where investments have been made (BART and Caltrain, for example) have dramatically higher usage. Those that have fallen into the deadly cycle of periodic service cuts and fare increases have declined in behavioral influence and importance as they’ve struggled to hold onto their shrinking ridership bases.

For me, the above facts prove two things. First, if you take bad transit and make it worse, people will have “disdain” for it. Alert the media! But second, if you take bad transit and make it mediocre, riders will beat a path to your door. Just imagine how the world would change if we actually provided real transit alternatives in terms of travel time, cost and convenience. Imagine good transit. You might find, that, far from living in a “car culture,” we live in a “…desperate for alternatives to the car,” culture.
If you don’t believe it, explain the performance of California intercity rail and bus service in the land of the auto. Explain the success of the Baby Bullets, despite the fact that they still don’t go into Downtown San Francisco. Explain the San Diego Trolley and Coaster and ACE and all the other new systems that, because of chintzy funding, can’t expand fast enough to meet demand.

Despite their “disdain,” Californians have led the way on many of these transit fronts. Bay Areans keep telling us they want transportation problems solved. We keep ignoring them and using the “car culture” and “transit disdain” as our excuse. Can we stop, please?