Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States

Why Is American Mass Transit So Bad? It's a Long Story. (citylab.com) 463

Jonathan English, writing for City Lab: One hundred years ago, the United States had a public transportation system that was the envy of the world. Today, outside a few major urban centers, it is barely on life support. Even in New York City, subway ridership is well below its 1946 peak. Annual per capita transit trips in the U.S. plummeted from 115.8 in 1950 to 36.1 in 1970, where they have roughly remained since, even as population has grown.

This has not happened in much of the rest of the world. While a decline in transit use in the face of fierce competition from the private automobile throughout the 20th century was inevitable, near-total collapse was not. At the turn of the 20th century, when transit companies' only competition were the legs of a person or a horse, they worked reasonably well, even if they faced challenges. Once cars arrived, nearly every U.S. transit agency slashed service to cut costs, instead of improving service to stay competitive. This drove even more riders away, producing a vicious cycle that led to the point where today, few Americans with a viable alternative ride buses or trains.

Now, when the federal government steps in to provide funding, it is limited to big capital projects. (Under the Trump administration, even those funds are in question.) Operations -- the actual running of buses and trains frequently enough to appeal to people with an alternative -- are perpetually starved for cash. Even transit advocates have internalized the idea that transit cannot be successful outside the highest-density urban centers. And it very rarely is.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Is American Mass Transit So Bad? It's a Long Story.

Comments Filter:
  • It's simple.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:03PM (#57270586)
    Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.
    • Fleets of on-demand, self-driving electric cars are the future.

      • Re: It's simple.. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:31PM (#57270822)

        Waiting for technology is the sign of failure of planning and thought.

        Self driving cars are 20-30 years away. Wide scale deployment of waymos level 4 service is 10-15 years away.

        • Waiting for technology is the sign of failure of planning and thought.

          Assuming technology won't improve is an even bigger failure. Projects like California's $100B train will take decades to finish, yet are focused on fixing yesterday's problems.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by HornWumpus ( 783565 )

      It IS simple.

      Population density.

      Yards kill mass transit. Which works for us.

      We can vote with our feet, but the social engineers don't like how we vote. Fuck them, right in the ear.

      • Re:It's simple.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by imgod2u ( 812837 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:15PM (#57270684) Homepage

        This argument never makes sense. Sure, I shouldn't expect mass transit from SF to Wichita. But just within CA, the areas of SF and LA alone have the population density equal to that of Germany (between Munich and Berlin or Bohn, for example).

        Ditto for NYC and Boston, which are very similar to that of Tokyo and Kyoto (both in distance between, population density within the city as well as rural areas in between).

        The reason is nothing more than politics. And it would seem the ultra-liberal politicians of CA and NYC/MA aren't any better at adopting mass transit (despite the appeals to how well Europe or Japan does things as well as concern for greenhouse gas) compared to the ultra-conservative politicians of TX.

        • SF and LA have moderate population density with a reasonably high density core (more SF). But they also have a huge empty space between them (that you could lose Germany in).

          SF also has working mass transit.

          Tokyo is 2,000 km^2, Boston is 130 km ^ 2. The core of 'Boston' has a 20% lower population density than the entire Tokyo prefecture. In other words 'Bullshit on you'.

          • Re:It's simple.. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:56PM (#57271042)

            GM paid to have trolley car tracks ripped out. Some cities were built with viable ways to expand mass transportation, and if they didn't they now face excruciating costs in buying easements, right of way, with a cost per mile that's gruesome.

            Trains and trolleys used to link the US in astounding ways. The airlines wanted a taste of that. So did the auto industry. Train tracks became urban trails. Who's going to vote to rip up urban trails?

            Then it became a class and race crisis, where people didn't want to have to ride with the poor, the unwashed masses, and heaven forbid, white people traveling with black people and Latinos. The rich white folk could all afford cars and the fuel, taxes, and insurance. The banks and auto makers made lots of dough financing driving by yourself. So did the oil companies. Public transportation in many areas suffered, just as the poor suffer today-- no one wants to subsidize those the needs poor people or pay the a living wage.

            I take public transport wherever/whenever I can because it's cheaper and I don't have to drive. I can do my phone surfing, or just relax. Someone else is driving and they're usually good. I can't see a good reason to fly on the NE corridor at all. Between regional rail and Uber/Lyft, it doesn't make sense.

            Summary: it's a class/race/economics/social-shunning problem, not to mention the financing underneath is controlled by people that never use it.

        • Re:It's simple.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:41PM (#57270908) Homepage

          ...The reason is nothing more than politics. And it would seem the ultra-liberal politicians of CA and NYC/MA aren't any better at adopting mass transit....

          Actually, New York City and Boston are two cities in the US where a large number of people DO use public transportation. The NY Subway and the Boston T are both old and both in need of upgrading, but they are both in every day use by ordinary people. If you want to list liberal cities that don't have good public transportation, I'd go with LA and Seattle.

          (Although, to be fair, LA actually does have a metro, IF you happen to live near a stop and only want to go somewhere near a stop.)

          • Re:It's simple.. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @02:47PM (#57271488)

            If you want to list liberal cities that don't have good public transportation, I'd go with LA and Seattle.

            Transit use in Seattle is growing at an absurd rate - something like 40% of all downtown workers ride transit now. Light rail has been the primary driver in the shift.

            For a long time Seattle relied totally on a bus system. Which is silly - busses travel the same roads as cars, and get stuck in the same traffic messes. They finally wised up and started creating dedicated bus lanes... and, in some cases, bus-only roads.

            But the real game changer has been light rail. Quite expensive to build, but it’s reliable and moves lots of people.

            • by Nethead ( 1563 )

              I still think we should have gone with monorail. That was so stupid to get that far with it and then pull the plug.

              What ever happened to Dick Falkenbury?

        • Re:It's simple.. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @03:05PM (#57271620)

          We also have NIMBYs. For example, BART wasn't allowed to go through the expensive Menlo Park so so there was no service to the south bay. Turns out the south bay became a hot item later where tons of people and the high paying jobs were, while S.F. slowly became more of a bedroom community. You plan for today but the result may not be as useful tomorrow. And tomorrow there will be no budget or capability to change. Also Menlo Park has not allowed expressways through the city, so there was often a fanout of autos coming off of the bridge.

          Now BART is going to the south bay but it's still complicated, it goes around the east bay so as to bypass Menlo Park. It will help a lot of people for sure but not as many as it could if it became a ring.

          Then there's the issue that it's not enough. To get to BART in the first place is tricky. There's park-and-ride which just means drive for awhile and then park in a high crime area before taking mass transit. Or you take a bus or light rail for an hour first. Plus the cost; still less than the cost of a car, but if you already have a car because you need it to go get groceries and take the kids to school then it's an added burden; especially with Cal-Train which is not cheap.

          On the bright side however, I see more and more higher density (and luxury) apartments being built very close to mass transit stops, BART, Light Rail, etc. These are no longer associated with poor communities. On the downside, many of those who can afford the luxury apartments seem to prefer Uber or other inefficient modes of transportation that defeat the purpose of mass transit.

          Overall, from what I've seen in many areas in the US, mass transit has these problems: sparse, does not go where you want to go, is slow and requires multiple changes, limited hours. Areas with high tax revenue are low density and don't want mass transit; areas with high density tend to have relatively low tax revenue and can't afford the mass transit or don't have the political clout.

    • Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      Powerful people don't use grocery stores either, yet they seem to work well.

      • by caseih ( 160668 )

        What does that have to do with mass transit? People simply die without access to affordable food. Hence grocery stores for most people, catering for the rich people, and meal ingredient delivery stores for the upper middle class. Doesn't relate at all to the economics and politics of mass transit.

        • > What does that have to do with mass transit? People simply die without access to affordable food. Hence grocery stores for most people ...which they get to and from using transit. They also use transit to get to and from work, which they do to earn money to buy those groceries in the first place. So as dumb as the argument is, the OP's argument is even dumber.
          =Smidge=

          • by clodney ( 778910 )

            Hence grocery stores for most people ...which they get to and from using transit.

            I expect that using transit to get to and from a grocery store is only common in high density situations where either you don't have a car, or it is too expensive/inconvenient to park. Where I live people mostly drive to the store and stock up for a week at a time. In Europe or places like NYC, it is much more common to go to the store every day or two, so you don't need to manage 5 or 6 bags of groceries at a time.

            That is a cultural shift that is in some ways more difficult than taking transit to work, b

        • What does that have to do with mass transit? People simply die without access to affordable food. Hence grocery stores for most people, catering for the rich people, and meal ingredient delivery stores for the upper middle class. Doesn't relate at all to the economics and politics of mass transit.

          If you look at what the stores actually stock, it is well beyond purely survival level. They provide what the market wants. What the market does not want is poor quality mass transit. If it did, someone would provide it. What it wants is easy and directed individual transit. Which is what Uber, Lyft, and traditional Taxis provide. And they are doing very well at it.

      • But all stores keep people powerful. Mass transit doesn't do that either.
    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      Partly true, but in the past there were plenty of places that had streetcars as public transit. The problem was, streetcars competed with well, cars, so the powerful car lobby pretty much lobbied to get streetcar tracks ripped up so people would buy cars.

      Naturally, as streetcars got more difficult to use, people bought cars and drove.

      There was a time when basically everyone used "public transit" because only the very rich

    • Powerful people don't use mass transit, therefore there is no priority on mass transit.

      It could be argued that mass transit benefits the powerful because it provides a way to transport workers into their factories and offices. Personal transportation for the masses is just not economically feasible in the high-density institutions that are most efficient for capitalism. You would have to spend more in salaries to enable workers to pay the transportation costs.

      Spend some time in Tokyo, Seoul, or Manhattan to see how it works. Or, for that matter, the Pentagon.

      But of course the typical

    • by Hylandr ( 813770 )

      This article is not entirely accurate, as regional transit agencies like Sound Transit in Seattle Washington is seeing record breaking growth in ridership.

  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:03PM (#57270590)

    They are behind it for decades.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0... [nytimes.com]

    • by spudnic ( 32107 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:15PM (#57270686)

      We had a pretty forward looking transit plan up for a vote here in Nashville recently. It really was quite innovative and had good support.

      The Koch Brothers came in and spent millions on anti-transportation ads. They rallied the residents in lower income areas behind the idea that they were going to be stuck with old buses when the more affluent areas would get the new infrastructure.

      The proposal was voted down with more votes from those precincts casting ballots than for almost any other election.

      Sad.

    • As are the unions. As is the management. Oh, and that recession too. And, the homeless. Oh, and cheap ride-share services that are more flexible.

      Bottom line is that there are a lot of pressures on public transit, and it isn't something most people want to use.

      I would say the real culprit though is poor urban/metropolitan planning. You just can't have an elevated light-rail train stop that has 100 parking spots and is walkable for ~300 people and expect it to have an economically viable ridership. Each

  • by filesiteguy ( 695431 ) <perfectreign@gmail.com> on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:04PM (#57270598)
    I live outside of Los Angeles. In my case, there's a rail station about five miles from my house. There is also a train station a block from my office. I *could* ride a bike there and then take a train. I honestly would like to. However, the total commute by car is about 40 minutes (17 miles) door-to-door. The MINIMUM commute by rail would be three hours door to door.

    Thanks, I'll take my car.
    • by ausekilis ( 1513635 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:30PM (#57270812)

      My nearest bus stop is 7 miles away, nearest train stop is 3 miles from work (~12 miles for me). My options are ~35 min of drive time, an hour and a half of biking, an hour for car + train, or near two hours for some combination with a bus. As mentioned in one of my previous comments, even dedicated bike lanes are in short supply and I'd be taking my life in my own hands with 3000lb wrecking balls flying 3 feet next to me at 50mph.

      My city doesn't even have buses, I'd be going to an adjacent city to get to work. How's that for fun?

      • Ouch! See, the issue is how the developers organically designed cities. Not faulting anyone, it just wasn't planned for 7 billion people.
        • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          See, the issue is how the developers organically designed cities.

          "Organically"? Are you serious?

          If cities didn't force developers to build more parking than the developer's own customers want, would you still drive everywhere without a guarantee of a cheap place to store your vehicle at your destination?

          And without so much land wasted on vehicle storage, wouldn't there be more places within walking distance from any point? More jobs, more commerce, more grocery stores and entertainment venues, and more tax

      • by sconeu ( 64226 )

        Not to mention LA's "Everyone wants to go downtown" mentality.

        For those not familiar with LA, there are essentially three urban/suburban centers there. Downtown, the Westside, and the Valley.

        The major artery between the Westside and the Valley is the 405 Freeway, which essentially exists in a state of eternal gridlock.

        The only direct transit existing between those two areas is by bus, which means you're stuck on the 405.

        If you want to use rail, you have to take a bus from the Valley to North Hollywood (gran

        • by CWCheese ( 729272 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @04:48PM (#57272432)
          The reason LA trains don't go to LAX is the powerful taxicab commission that has spent decades lobbying the city to keep the trains at least 2 miles outside the airport so they can carry the passengers the final distance. Only the future Olympics (2028) has finally caused a slight break in that firewall; the city is extending light rail to a station 1 mile from LAX, and are building a brand new people-mover train from the station into LAX. So, the airline passenger can take the light rail all the way to the Crenshaw station, get out and transfer into a people mover to the airport, letting you off inside the center of the horseshoe so you can walk to one of the 8 terminals to get to your flight. If they are true to form, it will be like North Hollywood where you have to walk across a wide boulevard to make the transfer.
    • I was once working at an office that was across the street from a train station, and was next to a hospital... and between the hospital and train station there were multiple bus lines that converged within a block of my office. There was also bus stop less than 100 feet from my front door.

      However, because my morning commute would be eastbound, and NYC is to the west - and so virtually all public transport was optimized for conveying people westward in the morning - it was literally impossible for me to take

      • You bring up a valid point. In my experience, transit is designed to run with 1800's factory hours - 8:00 am to 6:00 pm in a downtown metropolis. Outside of that, results are sketchy.
      • by sconeu ( 64226 )

        DING DING DING DING!!!!

        I used to live two blocks from a train station (LA County Metrolink), and my work was also a few blocks from a Metrolink station. I *WANTED* to take the train to work, but it was the wrong direction -- it was going "outbound" in the AM in "inbound" in the afternoon. There were practically no trains going in the direction I needed, so I had to drive (20+ mile commute).

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Hang on. Riding 5 miles is any 30 minutes at a moderate pace. So it takes the train 2.5 hours to cover the remainder of that 17 miles?

      Sounds like it goes in the opposite direction and loops back or something.

  • Our current city / suburb design does not allow proper public transportation, but requires us to drive everywhere in personal vehicles. The place where people live, where they work, and where they spend their times are too far away, and not coordinated.

    Back in time, the malls were actually designed to solve this problem by having enclosed living spaces. However given tax incentives that business had there, malls are currently (almost) always used by shopping, and not a tiny city as initially envisioned.

    Also

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:22PM (#57270742)

    Many US cities had streetcar lines up until the 50s/60s. They were by and large privately owned, later bought by GM/Firestone, and went bust to be replaced by busses, which required tires. So the cities tore out miles and miles of track.

    Stupid right? It's a failure of government that just wanted to move on to cars, and didn't see any value in buying this infrastructure (already on the publicly owned and maintained streets).

    The US has long had this fantasy that everything can just be done by private enterprise. For some things it's true. I'm not a fan of government telecom owned telecom monopolies or the government owned energy monopoly in Mexico. But some things provide positive externalities like transit, or roads or bridges really should be owned and operated by the government.

    Most other countries figured this out long ago. We still thought we could give short shrify to transit, and hope people just get along with cars, and move further and further away (some weird obsession with wanting more property).

  • Transit in Utah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tog Klim ( 909717 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:28PM (#57270784)
    Transit Utah is surprisingly good for mountain state.

    I used it to commute for several years. The problem was the increased time spent in the commute.

    Using the trains my commute was 1.5 hours from my door to my office. On motorcycle it is 45 minutes. In a car it was someplace in between. They offered wifi on the train, but the quality was too poor to do anything beyond a git push, email or basic browsing. Forget using a VPN. To make the train time useful I had to save work for the train. If I didn't have that kind of work to do, then the extra hour and half was coming out of my personal time. (my quality of life)

    Now I work closer to home. Self transport is 15-20 minutes now. Mass transit is 50 minutes but only runs twice a day. But even if it was every ten minutes, I wouldn't do it because I want to be productive.

    Self transport (Automobile/Motorcycle) equates to freedom in the US; go where you want when you want.

    Mass transport puts you on someone else's schedule instead of your own.

    Mass transit can't seem to function in the US because there is just too much space to cover. For densely populated areas there is enough mass to make it work. Without the population density, it cannot make enough money to pay it's own bills, so it naturally fails unless it is propped up by a government.
    • Utah isn't America, it is flyoverstan. Infrastructure doesn't work there because flyoverstan refuses to pay for it. They get scared of any bill for an amount that they cant stuff in a cattle skin. NYC has a nice system interconnected to a variety of areas. In NYC everyone takes the subway from the fry cook, to the mid level exec earning 300k. The subway works just fine, everyone takes it for work. In my 4 years living there I never once met someone who didn't fall into two catagories. 1) Walked to work, 2)
  • NYC 1975 vs Today (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:29PM (#57270798)

    When I was a teenager in NYC, one could walk up to a subway platform and count on a train showing up in 3-5 minutes.

    Today, that time is more like 10-30 minutes, depending on how broke the MTA is from it's monthly pension obligations that month.

    The reasons ridership is down is because it's faster to simply walk or to take a cab.

    Mass transit suffers from the Amtrak problem. It is unable to provide adequate service because 80% of its budget is spend paying the unsustainable pension promises of yesteryear, and paying absurd salaries to current employees. Seriously, clerks working in MTA token booths get a compensation package worth well in excess of $100K per year, just to change US currency into subway tokens.

    Fix that problem, and you fix mass transit.

  • by timholman ( 71886 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:32PM (#57270832)

    Once cars arrived, nearly every U.S. transit agency slashed service to cut costs, instead of improving service to stay competitive.

    That statement presupposes that "improving service" could ever have allowed mass transit to keep up. How do you "compete" with personal transit that takes you from door to door, on your own schedule, day or night, from the convenience of your own home, without having to worry about being assaulted or robbed by someone riding with you? It was inevitable that mass transit would lose out when automobiles came on the scene.

    The problem with the mass transit debate is two-fold:

    (1) It is dominated by people who moan and moralize about what other people "ought" to be doing, rather than what they choose to do as a matter of personal convenience and time savings.

    (2) Many of the people doing the moaning and moralizing don't believe in eating the dog food being served to the plebes; they drive their own vehicles. You see, their personal time is extremely valuable, even if they don't consider yours to be.

    There is no "conspiracy" against mass transit. Commuters are quite capable of making their own choices about the quickest, safest, most convenient way to getting from point A to point B. Mass transit just can't compete with personal transportation, except in the very densest urban environments.

    • by DogDude ( 805747 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:48PM (#57270968)
      Mass transit just can't compete with personal transportation, except in the very densest urban environments

      Spoken as somebody who's never been out of the US, I'm willing to bet.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @02:41PM (#57271442) Homepage Journal

      Mass transit can compete with personal transport just fine.

      Look at Japan. Train stations are major hubs. They often build a shopping centre on top of the station, and offices around it. Bus companies link up to get people further out. Any new development makes sure it has regular bus/real links and sells that as a benefit of living there - sail past the people stuck in their cars on congested roads with a rail track or purpose built bus lane.

      The mistake other countries make is trying to graft on public transport later. Train companies in particular miss a trick by not using the land the station is built on for 10 floors of retail too.

    • (1) It is dominated by people who moan and moralize about what other people "ought" to be doing,

      No, it's dominated by people who assume the only way they know is the only way thats possible.

      That statement presupposes that "improving service" could ever have allowed mass transit to keep up.

      It has more than done so in other countries.

      How do you "compete" with personal transit that takes you from door to door, on your own schedule, day or night,

      How do you compete with being able to ride absolutely sozzled or

  • old cities (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @01:44PM (#57270928)
    Most large European cities were large long before the advent of the automobile. This meant their transit infrastructure was designed at most for horse and buggy. To build roads to accommodate automobiles would mean tearing down buildings to widen roads. America by contrast grew up with automobiles and wide open spaces so except for the North East coastal cities the roads are at least big enough for most passenger cars. Several other factors contributed to make mass transit less of a necessity leading to low ridership.
  • Last Choice method in the USA.

    Only the Homeless and Criminals use it.

    It is a NASTY dirty way to travel with lots of chances to get robbed or raped.

    Any POS car is FAR better and cleaner.

  • We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses. We are told we need cars to make us happy and productive - so we buy cars.

    Mass transit has no effective marketing. It's just there, like municipal water service. You can use it or ignore it. And as we keep telling people that the "good life" is outside the city - and hence outside the reach of many transit systems - they don't invest the effort in using them.
    • by sootman ( 158191 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @02:11PM (#57271146) Homepage Journal

      > We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.

      Is that why we buy them? I bought mine so I wouldn't have to share walls with inconsiderate assholes.

      • by eth1 ( 94901 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @03:09PM (#57271646)

        > We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses.

        Is that why we buy them? I bought mine so I wouldn't have to share walls with inconsiderate assholes.

        Also, a single-family home allows me to do things I enjoy that would make ME an inconsiderate asshole if I shared walls/floors/ceilings with someone.

    • We are told we need single-family houses to make us happy and wealthy - so we buy single-family houses. We are told we need cars to make us happy and productive - so we buy cars. Mass transit has no effective marketing. It's just there, like municipal water service. You can use it or ignore it. And as we keep telling people that the "good life" is outside the city - and hence outside the reach of many transit systems - they don't invest the effort in using them.

      Or ... maybe some people actually just have preferences different from yours.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Seriously? You think we buy houses because we're stupid and fall for marketing tricks? We buy houses because they're nice and have yards. Ever lived in an apartment and had the unit one floor up get renovated? 8am sanding and drilling? What about assholes who blast music at 2am? People the world 'round prefer single family dwellings. The largest they can afford. It's not some stupidity like you imply.
  • As people switched to cars, mass transit agencies cut service to save money instead of expanding service to compete.

    If we want to make mass transit really work, we need to invest in it. In Boston, the infrastructure is ancient, many of the trains are extremely old, the service schedule is awkward, and the subway lines don't go far enough.

    After all these years of neglect, making a system that people really use is going to take a huge amount of money. That means new taxes, probably focused on car drivers, s

  • If you have to take a bus that makes 20 stops before your stop then it's not worth it to ride. More express locations would help. I ride the bus. I drive my car 4 miles to an express pickup location with security monitored parking. That express goes straight downtown where I work in 17-20min, half the time it would take me to drive. (plus I don't have to deal with other drivers, can read a book, and get free wifi on the bus) If I had to take a non-express it would take about 2 hrs. Ain't nobody got tim
  • by eepok ( 545733 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @02:04PM (#57271098) Homepage

    I work with transit agencies, city planners, major employers, and the commuters themselves. Here's what I know to be the causes:

    1. Low population density - If you go to the denser parts of LA, you get good transit. Same with SF, NYC, etc. If you head out to the land of single-family homes, population density drops to the point where you need massive subsidies to keep a route going. But then, you're fighting against...

    2. Suburban Road Network Design - When you have mile-long block-faces along arterials, you guarantee that transit riders will need to walk .5-.75 miles on average to a bus route... not even likely the route they need. Then there's the whole issue of...

    3. People Don't Live Near Work - Most people have to balance housing affordability, proximity to work, and living in a home they like. Part of that is because those who can afford to buy a home typically want a back yard, front yard, and a two car garage (see #s 1 and 2) and the other part is that given the demand to live near major work centers, the cost per square foot to live near work is pretty damn high. And then there's the issue of people buying up homes for investment (rentals) instead of living in them thereby exasperating the "drive til you qualify" problem, but that's a whole other discussion.

    4. Free parking and ignorance of the cost of commutes - People don't want to pay for public transit they're not using, so they vote down funding. That increases user fees and thus makes it unattractive to use because most people don't have separate parking fees. Instead, employers underpay their workers to fund parking costs. Moreover, people assume that "gas need to be bought" so they don't factor the cost of fuel into their commutes and thus can't accurately compare the cost of a monthly transit pass to the cost of a drive-alone commute.

    5. Transit Fare Interoperability - Transit systems are typically city-wide or county-wide. Very few cross county jurisdictional boundaries. They are thus, in effect, silo'd. They have their own fare/rate structure (cost per boarding, discounts for multi-boarding passes), pass structure (monthly passes vs. 30-day passes), and absent a multi-jurisdictional agreement (Like Clipper in the Bay Area), many people need to purchase and maintain multiple bus passes for daily commutes. State SHOULD pass laws that require that each county get onboard with multi-jurisdictional pass/pricing schemes by 202X and then set another deadline to have groups of neighboring counties merge their pass/pricing schema until we have statewide transit passes. After all, it has taken over 20 years for the SF Bay area Clipper Card to get to where it is and it still only includes 22 of the local transit agencies. There are over 164 transit agencies in California alone.

    I could go on....

    • Thanks ! Very interesting.

      I would insist on 4. In most European cities, you just don't want to drive to cities. Parking is very limited, expensive and limited in time as well, plus gas is expensive. Public transportation is fast, frequent and cheap.

      In the 70s, traffic started to become really bad and the answer to that has been to remove lanes for cars and replace them by public transportation lanes (because those are carrying more people, hence are more efficient), make city centers car free, build parki

  • by PuddleBoy ( 544111 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @02:05PM (#57271114)

    My employer is willing to deduct the cost of a monthly transit pass (in Portland, OR) from my check *pre-tax*, so they are showing their support by offering this incentive and convenience. (The pass arrives by mail each month)

    That pass is good for; bus lines, train lines, streetcars, and the buses that run between Portland and Vancouver. It's quite convenient. (easy)

    That ease of access should never be underestimated. Even though I got the pass for commuting to work, I have used it to travel to concert venues - I then don't experience that right-after-the-concert-crush of people trying to drive out of a huge parking lot.

    Yes, using transit takes longer. There are many instances where I would not dream of using it because of the total transit time involved. But for a lot of reasonably-short-distance travel, it's great.

    If more employers installed more bike racks, offered convenience in buying transit passes, encouraged telecommuting, etc. we would all benefit in many (some subtle) ways.

  • The U.S. is blessed with a lot more land area (per capita) than most European and Asian countries. As a result, even its cities tend to be low density and sprawling. Public transportation works best in extremely dense urban areas. Lower density means:
    • The variability in number of people riding a particular bus/train becomes higher. This is a simple consequence of statistics. The more people on average there are waiting to get on at each bus stop, the less variability there is in the number of people w
    • This is also why public transportation is still prevalent and highly utilized in the denser urban city centers in the U.S., but mostly absent in the less dense surroundings and suburbs. Even when it's present in those areas, you're usually looking at 30-45 minute wait times for the next bus. Increasing funding for public transport doesn't solve any of these issues (unless you're willing to accept increased waste - more buses and subway cars traveling empty).

      Of course. But they keep building them bec

  • What is the mean cost per rider mile across all the systems? What is the mean price paid by the rider per rider mile across all the systems? And, of all the mass transit systems in the U.S., how many would break even without subsidies?
  • by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @02:28PM (#57271326)

    The US used to have the best mass transit in the world.

    Then cam the streetcar conspiracy:

    >>
    Between 1938 and 1950, National City Lines and its subsidiaries, American City Lines and Pacific City Lines—with investment from GM, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California through a subsidiary, Federal Engineering, Phillips Petroleum, and Mack Trucks—gained control of additional transit systems in about 25 cities.

    The companies were sued for their conspiracy, but mass transit never recovered.

  • Probably not. But I find it interesting.

    Motorized folding bicycles, and skateboards, and what have you, could conceivably help public transportation because they help solve the last two miles problem.

    The transports are getting better, and cheaper, all the time. Fun to watch them on youtube.

  • Every kind of profit in this country is about money. Since that is the only way the powers that be see profit we don't get to have decent public works. Its not just the powers that be though. Those that operate the public transit only do it for money and many care little about who get where. Those that do often don't get the support they need to make it happen. They don't plan for the future except in terms of cost and will not spend money to prevent things from breaking down. They only put a band ai

  • by AnthonywC ( 4415891 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @03:26PM (#57271788)
    But almost all public infrastructure in USA are in very bad shape. USA got a D+ rating in 2017 from (ASCE) American Society of Civil Engineers https://www.infrastructurerepo... [infrastruc...rtcard.org]
  • by pz ( 113803 ) on Friday September 07, 2018 @03:31PM (#57271830) Journal

    The article mentions the Boston subway system frequently, but does not mention that ridership is way, way up since the Great Recession (almost 25% on the heavy rail portion of the subway, source: MBTA "Ridership Trends Final 022717", also see http://www.t4ma.org/boston_is_... [t4ma.org]). While there are plenty of reasons to dislike the subway system in Boston (including rampant corruption, gross ineptitude, poor management, inadequate maintenance, etc.), it is working at capacity during rush hour, and there are well-publicised plans to expand capacity. It's not clear how much more room there is for expansion, however, as, for example, the Red Line trains run every 3 minutes during rush hour, and need to maintain a minimum separation.

    But declining ridership? Not in Boston.

Space is to place as eternity is to time. -- Joseph Joubert

Working...