Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We had a debate on that a couple of weeks ago that got rather heated. For many Manhattan-bound commutes during rush hour, taxi commutes are slower than transit commutes. So many might still choose to commute by transit.
I'd say there's also an in between where driving may still be more convenient but relying on transit still practical, so some non-poor people forgo driving.
I think a lot of affluent people who live in New York City will choose the "premium" transit mode to get to Manhattan, if not every day than at least most of the time. For example, if you commute from Forest Hills, Queens you could get there by taking the F train at 71st-Continental Avs for $2.50 each way. This will take you about a half hour, chances are you'll have to stand in a severely packed and slow subway car, but if you don't mind it then it's fine. For those who would rather spend a little more money, you could take the LIRR from Forest Hills and pay $8 each way (peak fare). The chances that you'll get a seat are a little better, and even if you have to stand it won't be a subway-like crush. It'll also get you to Manhattan a little faster, though the time difference isn't really a huge advantage.
Another example would be my neighborhood in Staten Island. I can take the local Staten Island Railway train to the ferry terminal, ride the ferry and then take the subway uptown for the same $2.50. For people on the island who don't live near the train stations, they can take local buses to the ferry, and do the same free transfer in Manhattan for $2.50. Alternatively, if you'd prefer a more comfortable ride than a mostly standing-room-only three mode transfer hell commute, for $6 each way you could take any variety of express bus routes to Manhattan, on comfortable (albeit somewhat aging) MCI coach buses giving you a one seat ride to the city. In rush hour, both ways will take you OVER an hour and a half each way however the comfort and convenience of the bus (which IMO comes very close to mimicking driving in ) means that a LOT of commuters choose to take the express buses every day (including my father).
Agreed. Though the LIRR and express are still public transportation, regardless of whether they're premium. While pricey (maybe about $2500/year) they're not as expensive as paying for a taxi each day and in the reach of non-wealthy people with decent jobs. And the LIRR from Forest Hills would probably be faster than a taxi during rush hour, sometimes much faster. Eh, since the LIRR has filled up from commuters coming from Long Island, the chances of getting a seat is low during rush hour. A subway might even be better since the E and F are just starting (not really sure). The Forest Hills subway station gets about 25 times the number of boarding as the nearby LIRR station. If the person doesn't work by Penn Station, the subway be the better choice as you'd have to transfer again. The express buses also have many of the downsides of driving: liable to rush hour traffic jams. A commuter train has better ride comfort than a coach bus IMO, as well.
Agreed. Though the LIRR and express are still public transportation, regardless of whether they're premium. While pricey (maybe about $2500/year) they're not as expensive as paying for a taxi each day and in the reach of non-wealthy people with decent jobs. And the LIRR from Forest Hills would probably be faster than a taxi during rush hour, sometimes much faster. Eh, since the LIRR has filled up from commuters coming from Long Island, the chances of getting a seat is low during rush hour. A subway might even be better since the E and F are just starting (not really sure). The Forest Hills subway station gets about 25 times the number of boarding as the nearby LIRR station. If the person doesn't work by Penn Station, the subway be the better choice as you'd have to transfer again. The express buses also have many of the downsides of driving: liable to rush hour traffic jams. A commuter train has better ride comfort than a coach bus IMO, as well.
Another advantage of using E/F as opposed to the LIRR in Forest Hills is frequency. I don't think all LIRR trains stop at Forest Hills so a resident might have to adhere to a schedule.
(Side note, I love the look of Forest HIlls):
A cab would just sit in traffic, meter going hyperbolic, trying to get under or across the East River.
HYPOTHETICALLY there are two cities. Both cities have a population of 50,000 people. Both cities are 50 square miles in area (perfect squares for this hypothetical). Both cities have a population density of 1,000 people per square mile.
City A has 5 transit routes that cover 14 miles of road.
City B has 50 transit routes that cover 98 miles of road.
City A has no routes that run 24 hours a day.
City B has 5 routes that run 24 hours a day.
Who is more likely to ride public transit in City A?
Who is more likely to ride public transit in City B?
On which City's transportation system would you be more likely to find more diversity (in economic terms) riding it? City A or City B?
Which city would be more likely to allocate money to further expanding/improving its public transportation? City A or City B?
Last edited by A2DAC1985; 03-06-2013 at 02:29 PM..
Another advantage of using E/F as opposed to the LIRR in Forest Hills is frequency. I don't think all LIRR trains stop at Forest Hills so a resident might have to adhere to a schedule.
True, checking schedules, the E train is every 4 minutes during rush hour, F train every 5 minutes during rush hour. Since they both run on the same track, it's nearly pushing the limits of the MTA rules for max train frequency (1 train every 2 minutes), a situation not found often elsewhere in the US. Between 7 am and 9 am, 5 westbound LIRR trains stop at Forest Hills, saving only 6 minutes of time over the subway.
Quote:
(Side note, I love the look of Forest HIlls):
Me too. At least the Forest Hills Gardens section full of mock tudor. I think I mentioned it in an old thread about the Garden City movement. Some nice stuff there all around. Going back to the OP, Forest Hills isn't a place where transit is for poor people, and in you live in a spot like this, may be annoying to own a car.
Quote:
A cab would just sit in traffic, meter going hyperbolic, trying to get under or across the East River.
Probably, though there are more crossing than on the Hudson side. As an aside, I once drove across the East River to Manhattan on the Queensboro Bridge by mistake as I got confused by signs. Traffic wasn't bad luckily and just went back to Queens without wasting too much more time.
HYPOTHETICALLY there are two cities. Both cities have a population of 50,000 people. Both cities are 50 square miles in area (perfect squares for this hypothetical). Both cities have a population density of 1,000 people per square mile.
City A has 5 transit routes that cover 14 miles of road.
City B has 50 transit routes that cover 98 miles of road.
City A has no routes that run 24 hours a day.
City B has 5 routes that run 24 hours a day.
Who is more likely to ride public transit in City A?
Who is more likely to ride public transit in City B?
On which City's transportation system would you be more likely to find more diversity (in economic terms) riding it? City A or City B?
Which city would be more likely to allocate money to further expanding/improving its public transportation? City A or City B?
Your hypothetical is unlikely, first. Sure, you'll get more non-poor people on transit in City B, but that doesn't mean the cause of more ridership and public transit support is due to higher economic diversity. Where I grew up (Suffolk County, NY) for all but a couple of bus routes only people who had no other choice would ride the bus (train a different story but mostly because it was faster and competitive or better convenience-wise with driving into the city). I suppose the county could fund lots more buses with very low ridership but it doesn't make much sense. People aren't avoiding the buses because they're full of poor people there, though it adds to the stigma.
As to which city would allocate more funds, A. City B may have expanded transit to cover all that there could be ridership for.
When a public transportation system is objectively lower in quality, service, and coverage, the more that system is viewed as being for "poor people"?
And when a public transportation system is objectively higher in quality, service, and coverage, the more that system is viewed as being for "regular people"?
There are exceptions of course, but generally speaking your statement holds a lot of truth. My dad told me once that there are two types of people in this world - those who have more money than time and those who have more time than money. It's pretty obvious that the transit service in Albuquerque (as well as most cities in the US) caters to the latter.
I totally agree that freeways are an existing infrastructure that's way too often underutilized when it comes to bus routes. If cities are truly interested in reducing traffic congestion they need to take advantage of the potential park and ride crowd rather than depending on those who are the captive riders, and in order to do so there should be more freeway express point to point routes, along with more frequent service and reasonable hours of operation. I can't stand how our city assumes people don't need or use transit after 6-7 PM or on Sundays or holidays.
I wouldn't consider myself poor but these days I fall into the group of those with more time than money, and that's part of how I'm able to get along by bus and bike. And I'm probably one of the few people who actually enjoys seeing gas prices go up! Since my transportation costs stay flat regardless of the price of gas, I become relatively more wealthy in comparison to those who are petro-dependent. And it looks like we're nearing the $4/gallon mark once again.
Probably, though there are more crossing than on the Hudson side. As an aside, I once drove across the East River to Manhattan on the Queensboro Bridge by mistake as I got confused by signs. Traffic wasn't bad luckily and just went back to Queens without wasting too much more time.
One early morning many years ago I drove over the Queensboro Bridge in the reversable lanes ... the WRONG WAY. It seemed there was a breakdown in communication between the cops on the Queens side and the cops on the Manhattan side. It was quite an adventure.
2. There is a "captive" audience, for sure. And "choice" riders as well. I don't know about you, but I also think of disabled, license suspended, and geriatric individuals as "captive" audiences as well. Would you?
Definition
Persons who do not have immediate access to private transportation or who otherwise must use public transportation in order to travel. Also, persons limited by circumstance to use one mode of transportation. Or, having to rely on public transportation to meet one's travel needs. (Source: AASHTO Glossary)
And I'm probably one of the few people who actually enjoys seeing gas prices go up! Since my transportation costs stay flat regardless of the price of gas, I become relatively more wealthy in comparison to those who are petro-dependent. And it looks like we're nearing the $4/gallon mark once again.
What a ridiculous statement, I can't understand how anyone could say something like this.
Because we all know the only people affected by the price of oil, it can't possibly non-drivers in any meaningful way, transportation or not. People who live in magical urban areas where all goods and supplies are delivered by solar-powered electric trains, "diesel" buses are fueled with unicorn tears, transit agencies don't use petroleum for anything at all. Oh, of course all plastics are 100% recycled and nothing else we use comes from petroleum whatsoever.
I understand you enjoy sharing your "enlightened" view that everyone should and could ditch their cars for 100% of trips everywhere, or even cut their driving down by living in denser arrangements that not everyone wants to live in. But to enjoy the pain and suffering of others just because you don't agree with their lifestyle is completely absurd. I drive virtually everywhere, and I don't sit there and take joy out of someone getting hit by a car on foot/on a bike, or smile in joy at the city cutting bus service for people who rely on it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) means that a LOT of commuters choose to take the express buses every day (including my father).
Since my transportation costs stay flat regardless of the price of gas, I become relatively more wealthy in comparison to those who are petro-dependent. And it looks like we're nearing the $4/gallon mark once again. 
