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.
One of the reasons public transportation is so poor and inefficient in the US, is because our transportation infrastructure is based so heavily on the car. Public transportation is virtually an afterthought.
Here is an example of the change that made public transportation such a poor choice. 60-70 years ago, downtown Youngstown was a major retail center of the region. The main thoroughfare through downtown is Federal Ave., and the retail district was about 0.6 of a mile, from end to end. Today, that same retail district--for all intents and purposes--is stretched out along a 7.5 mile stretch of US 224, in the suburbs. So, while a streetcar could easily whisk someone from end to end of the downtown shopping district, it's a cumbersome bus ride to get from end to end of the suburban shopping district. The biggest difference between then and now is that there were no parking lots and drive-thru's between each store and restaurant, downtown.
70 years ago it was 1946; WW II was just ending and the suburbs, while they had always been around, were starting to expand. 60 years ago it was 1956,and suburban expansion was in full swing. However, public transit had been around for a long time before that. PT didn't seem to rise to the occasion; didn't adapt. Meanwhile, more and more people were buying cars. By 1956, a lot of families had two cars. It doesn't make much financial sense to leave your car in the driveway/garage and take a bus to your local shopping area.
The car is much more general than a sprinter or a swimmer. It's not good for everything but it's good for a lot of things. Some form of it is the best form of transportation for every built form ranging from rural to urban densities significantly less than Manhattan. This includes older cities like Philadelphia, built before the car.
Rail transit is more of a specialist thing. It works well when you can put starting and ending points along a line; not so well otherwise.
Bus transit is just terrible in most cases.
My point was that, and has been consistently across threads, that different prominent modes favor different built forms, a point I extended to say that the value of a mode changes with the built form.
How a city develops around a car as the predominant mode is going to differ from how a city develops wherein the car in just one of a plurality of popular modes.
But it's a cycle: mode defines form, and form defines the value of the mode. A city built around the car is terrible for other modes; biking is low because it is inconvenient and dangerous, busing is poor because the routes are long, slow, the buses are in the same congestion as car traffic, and stops may be inconvenient to destinations. But if you don't build a city around the car, distances are shorter, transit is faster, cycling is safer and covers more area, and walking is safer and more convenient. Design a city around people, and the car becomes less valuable, if not outright inconvenient.
It is simply an unfair comparison to compare other modes to cars within a car-centric environment.
It's not like I unfairly pillory the car, I just recognize it for what it is and, more importantly, for what it is not. I say it is an amazingly valuable tool, but carries major costs, and is a poor, if not counter-productive, solution in many contexts.
70 years ago it was 1946; WW II was just ending and the suburbs, while they had always been around, were starting to expand. 60 years ago it was 1956,and suburban expansion was in full swing. However, public transit had been around for a long time before that. PT didn't seem to rise to the occasion; didn't adapt.
You leave out a lot of context as to WHY PT became less valuable, both absolutely and relative to the car. A whole lot of things led to the decline of PT and the rise of the car, very little of which was purely the free market in action.
But if you don't build a city around the car, distances are shorter, transit is faster, cycling is safer and covers more area, and walking is safer and more convenient. Design a city around people, and the car becomes less valuable, if not outright inconvenient.
It is simply an unfair comparison to compare other modes to cars within a car-centric environment.
It's not like I unfairly pillory the car, I just recognize it for what it is and, more importantly, for what it is not. I say it is an amazingly valuable tool, but carries major costs, and is a poor, if not counter-productive, solution in many contexts.
And prices tend to by higher, housing sizes smaller, and often just plain crowed and noisy.
One of the reasons public transportation is so poor and inefficient in the US, is because our transportation infrastructure is based so heavily on the car. Public transportation is virtually an afterthought.
Here is an example of the change that made public transportation such a poor choice. 60-70 years ago, downtown Youngstown was a major retail center of the region. The main thoroughfare through downtown is Federal Ave., and the retail district was about 0.6 of a mile, from end to end. Today, that same retail district--for all intents and purposes--is stretched out along a 7.5 mile stretch of US 224, in the suburbs. So, while a streetcar could easily whisk someone from end to end of the downtown shopping district, it's a cumbersome bus ride to get from end to end of the suburban shopping district. The biggest difference between then and now is that there were no parking lots and drive-thru's between each store and restaurant, downtown.
It's more than that. After WWii the supermarket was invented and smaller dry goods stores, butchers, delis, and bakeries could not compete. The automobile allowed us to go to larger stores with better prices and get shopping done in less time with less trips. When walking was your only choice and food could not be kept near as long(no Fridge or Freezer) there had to be a variety of retail in short distance. This is no longer true.
What you are getting now are things like coffee shops and cafes rather than grocery stores and candy stores.
And prices tend to by higher, housing sizes smaller, and often just plain crowed and noisy.
I've said it before: I can't argue with feelings.
But expressways and freeways aren't exactly quiet things, not even in the suburbs.
Meanwhile, the cost issue DT tends to be a matter of limited supply in a valuable area, which makes some sense if you think about it; you can't add more houses to a built-out DT, so a house in that area is a very scarce resource and numbers reflect that. At the same time, it should be noted that some of the cost (a lot of the cost in the SFBA!) is a failure to add density in and around the DT area and, therefore, supply to the market. So, only some of the cost is inherent to the location.
One of the reasons public transportation is so poor and inefficient in the US, is because our transportation infrastructure is based so heavily on the car. Public transportation is virtually an afterthought.
Here is an example of the change that made public transportation such a poor choice. 60-70 years ago, downtown Youngstown was a major retail center of the region. The main thoroughfare through downtown is Federal Ave., and the retail district was about 0.6 of a mile, from end to end. Today, that same retail district--for all intents and purposes--is stretched out along a 7.5 mile stretch of US 224, in the suburbs. So, while a streetcar could easily whisk someone from end to end of the downtown shopping district, it's a cumbersome bus ride to get from end to end of the suburban shopping district. The biggest difference between then and now is that there were no parking lots and drive-thru's between each store and restaurant, downtown.
The biggest difference is that people stopped wanting to live so close to their neighbors, whether is it was apartments, 2 families, or just houses built on top of each other and usually it was cheaper outside the city. Maybe there was a lack of housing inside the city limits, too. For a variety of reasons, farmers sold off their land just outside the urban areas and developers put up houses. Retail developed outside the city center to support the houses. It was probably more square feet for less money. Also, you can make multiple retail stops with a car. You do not have to carry it on and off public transportation and carry it while you walk from the bus stop to your house.
The car makes your time expand. The first time I noticed personal time savings was when I was in elementary school and I switched from walking the mile to school to riding my bike to school. All of a sudden something that took 20-25 minutes now took only 5-10 minutes. I was amazed. The car has the same effect on my life today.
The biggest difference is that people stopped wanting to live so close to their neighbors, whether is it was apartments, 2 families, or just houses built on top of each other and usually it was cheaper outside the city. Maybe there was a lack of housing inside the city limits, too. For a variety of reasons, farmers sold off their land just outside the urban areas and developers put up houses. Retail developed outside the city center to support the houses. It was probably more square feet for less money. Also, you can make multiple retail stops with a car. You do not have to carry it on and off public transportation and carry it while you walk from the bus stop to your house.
The car makes your time expand. The first time I noticed personal time savings was when I was in elementary school and I switched from walking the mile to school to riding my bike to school. All of a sudden something that took 20-25 minutes now took only 5-10 minutes. I was amazed. The car has the same effect on my life today.
Yeah, but if your city were denser and everything were closer together and not so spread out, then driving wouldn't make as much of a difference.
You leave out a lot of context as to WHY PT became less valuable, both absolutely and relative to the car. A whole lot of things led to the decline of PT and the rise of the car, very little of which was purely the free market in action.
Well, when you compare 18 minutes vs 78 minutes (worst case for driving, best case for transit), a one hour difference, you can see why people choose cars over transit when they have a choice. Of course it wasn't the free market; public transit is subsidized!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46H
I live on a train line and I had a contract at a company on another train line. The other town is 6 miles from my house or 11 to 18 minutes at rush hour via car. The morning train options were 6:13am and 78 minutes, 6:55am and 93 minutes, 7:11 and 88 minutes, and 7:44am and 100 minutes. The job was 1/2 mile from the train station and I live 7/10 mile form my train station. The monthly pass for the train is $170. Using the IRS $.54/mile number my driving cost was $129.60.
Even if I drive to my train station, the best case train commute takes almost 1:40 vs 18 minutes worse case driving. By driving, I can drop my kids off at school and not have to pay for before care services. If I leave work at 6pm, by train, I will get to my train station at 7:35pm vs home by 6:15pm if I drive. If I miss the 6:06pm train I get back to my train station at 8:14pm.
You would think that living 20 miles from NYC in high density suburbs there would be enough support for additional mass transit. The issue is all the towns in north NJ have residential and commercial so there is a huge amount of point to point commuting. There is no way for mass transit to accommodate this type of commuting. The car actually turns out to be a huge time saver and time has value.
The biggest difference is that people stopped wanting to live so close to their neighbors, whether is it was apartments, 2 families, or just houses built on top of each other and usually it was cheaper outside the city. Maybe there was a lack of housing inside the city limits, too. For a variety of reasons, farmers sold off their land just outside the urban areas and developers put up houses. Retail developed outside the city center to support the houses. It was probably more square feet for less money. Also, you can make multiple retail stops with a car. You do not have to carry it on and off public transportation and carry it while you walk from the bus stop to your house.
The car makes your time expand. The first time I noticed personal time savings was when I was in elementary school and I switched from walking the mile to school to riding my bike to school. All of a sudden something that took 20-25 minutes now took only 5-10 minutes. I was amazed. The car has the same effect on my life today.
People also stopped needing to live so close to their jobs.
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.
