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.)

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.

They don't need to do that. Being homeless doesn't mean you are necessarily lacking in morals and public decency. They need to find some way to enforce reasonable behaviour from their paying passengers of whatever status.

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

FWIW as an anecdotal point - if I were richer I'd take the bus. If I were a lot richer I'd ditch the car and use the bus day-to-day, use a taxi for the weekly shop, hire cars for long journeys (or take the train). Basically I'd consider this the best balance of environmental impact, utility (we're a family of 4) and cost.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.)

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."

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.

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.)

There.

I've seen and experienced my fair share of sketchiness on public transit, but I think it's something important enough that I cannot imagine supporting a tiered transit system.

I can afford to drive - I choose to use public transit for lifestyle reasons (and the big bundle of cash it saves me sure isn't burning a hole in my pocket) and to support what I think is one of the great remaining equalizers in our society. I will gladly and willingly pay higher fares than poor people if it means increased accessibility for them to a system that, in all honesty, they need more than I do. When I walk into work 20 minutes late because the bus broke down, nobody yells at me - for people in less fortunate positions in life, it can mean getting fired. An effective transit system that is affordable, accessible, and reliable is an absolute requirement if you want to even begin fixing the poverty problem.

And none of this can possibly occur if we create multi-tiered transit. All you will get is super-effective transit that only connects wealthy areas, and a barely functional lower tier that subsists on government handouts, and can't even get poor people to work on time. It will simply become a gaping money-hole that serves no one - it will make taxes higher for you, and make transit much less effective for the poor, and worsen the poverty situation in your city.

Transit is one of those issues that is close to my heart, and one where I'm willing to tolerate a lot of imperfections, because IMHO it's bigger and more important than me, or you, or wealthy people in general.

Hell, even just as a simple reality check public transit has benefited me greatly - I find that tech people are paid well, and many seem to lose touch with reality "on the ground" after a while - I've heard some truly idiotic and insensitive words uttered by my coworkers about the homeless, for example. My nightmare is becoming yet another pretentious, arrogant upper-middle class suburbanite tech worker, and I think riding transit daily at least does something to keep that in check. At least it won't let me dehumanize people poorer than I am like so many wealthy people seem to do.

But I suppose that is not compatible with a world of "profit-driven businesses"?

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

Like what, once every million passenger-miles?

No offense, but it sounds like you are too afraid of the city to leave your house. Perhaps you should see a therapist instead of lobbying for some special public transit lines for people that are exactly like you?

It also exists on the Paris metro.

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!