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.
There is an extensive bus system in this region and light rail is being constructed to interconnect the suburbs and downtown. I think Seattle's acceptance of public transportation can be attributed for the following reasons:
1) The metropolis is smaller than most cities. Due to geographical constraints, Seattle's suburbs extend only ~30 minutes in each direction (besides west, there's water there). This makes the metropolis pretty connected and makes traveling between each suburb relatively easy.
2) There are Express buses which take people directly to their Microsoft, Amazon, etc. buildings. So many buses are ridden exclusively by white-collar professionals. This takes away from much of the negative stigma of public transport. These buses have Wi-Fi as well.
3) Metro Seattle has terrible traffic. Buses utilize the carpool lane and thus get people to their destination faster.
4) Politics. Carpool lanes exist on highways, bus stops called "Park & Ride" have been constructed all over the metro area. These have full-fledged parking garages (with free parking).
5) Environmentally-conscious culture.
Yes, the political climates of the cities involved are relevant to the discussion and therefore it is appropriate to include them. "Politics" the way you're using it means the same thing as "local culture" and "social climate," and I don't see how any of that is irrelevant. Nothing I said about conservatives is untrue or even defamatory. I'm sure most self-identified conservatives would happily agree with what I wrote.
I am a conservative and I enjoy taking the bus in Minneapolis.
Politics doesn't matter.
We take the bus more often because our city is more dense and urban than sunbelt cities.
Yeah, the demographic comment was laughable but apparently had some traction. The people riding isn't different from place to place
yes I didn't play the race card in the first post because the demographics are not that different between the sunbelt or those cities where transit use is highly accepted (it's probably only somewhat accepted in SEA/ Portland/ Twin Cities)
Seattle and Portland are cities made up of mostly white people > mostly white people ride the bus > society loses the notion that riding the bus involves riding with poor people (which is misleading since white people can be poor, too) or that riding in a bus involves riding with people of a different ethnicity.
how about all the middle-class/ upwardly mobile/ "normal" whites riding alongside the minorities in Chicago, NYC, San Francisco, DC and Boston?
I take the bus here in Seattle. Sometimes people make fun of me for it. Even here in Seattle, you can get looked at as being a 2nd Class Citizen for taking the bus. I try not to worry too much about what people think. I live in Downtown Seattle so taking the bus works good for me. I guess I could make fun of my friends for spending lots of money on gas and parking if they ever make fun of me for taking the bus. I love living in Downtown Seattle because I can often just walk to many good restaurants or I can just hop in a cab and take a short 5 or 10 dollar cab ride. Also, I love drinking alcohol so not driving a car works really good for me as far as avoiding getting DUI's.
I am a conservative and I enjoy taking the bus in Minneapolis.
Politics doesn't matter.
We take the bus more often because our city is more dense and urban than sunbelt cities.
I wrote this beautiful long essay explaining everything perfectly and eloquently and it would have made everyone cry because it was so beautiful and perfect, but then my browser crashed and I lost the whole thing. So here's a less pretty outline:
Politics DO matter absolutely! Political leanings are defined by world views and the ways we prefer to interact with one another. When you say "I am a conservative," that doesn't mean you just agree with the party platform of the more conservative political party, it means the inner workings of the reasoning behind that party platform resonate more deeply with your values about the world and human interaction. Every conversation about how humans think and respond to each other is a conversation about politics at some level.
I am in no way trying to upset or insult conservatives or liberals or anyone else. Nothing I'm arguing falls outside the basic definitions of liberal and conservative social values.
There's a certain portion of this website that seems to be diametrically against any statistical categorization of anything ever - as in "ALL cities have liberal areas and conservative areas, there are people in ALL places who are gay, gay-friendly, and gay-unfriendly, you can't blame ALL Baby Boomers for the economy just because they were born at the same time." Well okay, yes, obviously all of that is true to an extent, but it also doesn't change the fact that Portland is much more liberal than Charlotte. The southern US is statistically more conservative than the northern US. Minneapolis is a safer place for gay people than central Africa. Social forces stemming from the changing landscape of human culture result in generations of people born around the same time who think and act similarly as a whole by virtue of their mutual encounter with the same situations throughout their lives while they are the same age. These are facts that are true and evidence-based and correct.
White flight, urban sprawl, the Sunbelt boom - all of this happened because of the conservative resurgence of the late 1900s, largely driven by the massive Baby Boomer generation.
One core and definitive value of conservative thought is that privacy and individual freedom are to be encouraged and protected. True. One core and definitive value of liberal thought is that community and sustainability are to be encouraged and protected. Also true. This does not mean that conservatives cannot value community and sustainability, but rather that privacy and individual freedom tend to be higher on their lists, and vice versa for liberals.
Personal automobiles are by nature more private than public transit and afford more flexibility and "individual freedom," if you want, for their users. Therefore, more deeply resonant with conservative thought. Public transit is by nature more communal and more sustainable. Therefore, more deeply resonant with liberal thought. High density is by nature more communal and more sustainable. More resonant with liberals. Low density is by nature more private and individualistic. More resonant with conservatives.
I keep seeing the argument in this thread that Mpls, Seattle, Portland, etc. have better attitudes toward public transit "because they're denser" than Sunbelt cities. No, that's why transit WORKS better there, not why people LIKE it more. The question is why it's more ACCEPTABLE to take public transit in the North than in the Sunbelt, and the answer to that question is that public opinion leans left up north and right down south.
Density can spur transit development, and transit development can definitely spur density, but neither can happen if the public doesn't want it to. Minneapolitans don't take the bus more because it's more dense than the Sunbelt - Miami is miles denser than Mpls, but its transit infrastructure is a joke comparatively - they take the bus because they want to, because it's seen as socially acceptable, because it's sustainable and communal which are more liberal values and the city leans heavily liberal politically.
Key point: once something is socially acceptable, it's socially acceptable for everyone, not just the people who made it that way. So there are tons of perfectly happy conservatives who probably live perfectly happy carless lives in Portland, and likewise there are tons of liberals who live happy lives in low-density suburbs in Phoenix.
Another key point: it's not "conservatives don't," but rather "liberals do." I'm not trying to say that conservatives don't live in the North and liberals don't live in the Sunbelt. What I'm saying is that the liberal presence in the North creates a positive environment for transit development and the conservative presence in the Sunbelt creates a positive environment for car-oriented development.
Again, this doesn't have to hold true in every single case to be correct and useful.
Really, the first version of this was awe-inspiring, you would have loved it. Such a pity.
I wrote this beautiful long essay explaining everything perfectly and eloquently and it would have made everyone cry because it was so beautiful and perfect, but then my browser crashed and I lost the whole thing. So here's a less pretty outline:
Politics DO matter absolutely! Political leanings are defined by world views and the ways we prefer to interact with one another. When you say "I am a conservative," that doesn't mean you just agree with the party platform of the more conservative political party, it means the inner workings of the reasoning behind that party platform resonate more deeply with your values about the world and human interaction. Every conversation about how humans think and respond to each other is a conversation about politics at some level.
I am in no way trying to upset or insult conservatives or liberals or anyone else. Nothing I'm arguing falls outside the basic definitions of liberal and conservative social values.
There's a certain portion of this website that seems to be diametrically against any statistical categorization of anything ever - as in "ALL cities have liberal areas and conservative areas, there are people in ALL places who are gay, gay-friendly, and gay-unfriendly, you can't blame ALL Baby Boomers for the economy just because they were born at the same time." Well okay, yes, obviously all of that is true to an extent, but it also doesn't change the fact that Portland is much more liberal than Charlotte. The southern US is statistically more conservative than the northern US. Minneapolis is a safer place for gay people than central Africa. Social forces stemming from the changing landscape of human culture result in generations of people born around the same time who think and act similarly as a whole by virtue of their mutual encounter with the same situations throughout their lives while they are the same age. These are facts that are true and evidence-based and correct.
White flight, urban sprawl, the Sunbelt boom - all of this happened because of the conservative resurgence of the late 1900s, largely driven by the massive Baby Boomer generation.
One core and definitive value of conservative thought is that privacy and individual freedom are to be encouraged and protected. True. One core and definitive value of liberal thought is that community and sustainability are to be encouraged and protected. Also true. This does not mean that conservatives cannot value community and sustainability, but rather that privacy and individual freedom tend to be higher on their lists, and vice versa for liberals.
Personal automobiles are by nature more private than public transit and afford more flexibility and "individual freedom," if you want, for their users. Therefore, more deeply resonant with conservative thought. Public transit is by nature more communal and more sustainable. Therefore, more deeply resonant with liberal thought. High density is by nature more communal and more sustainable. More resonant with liberals. Low density is by nature more private and individualistic. More resonant with conservatives.
I keep seeing the argument in this thread that Mpls, Seattle, Portland, etc. have better attitudes toward public transit "because they're denser" than Sunbelt cities. No, that's why transit WORKS better there, not why people LIKE it more. The question is why it's more ACCEPTABLE to take public transit in the North than in the Sunbelt, and the answer to that question is that public opinion leans left up north and right down south.
Density can spur transit development, and transit development can definitely spur density, but neither can happen if the public doesn't want it to. Minneapolitans don't take the bus more because it's more dense than the Sunbelt - Miami is miles denser than Mpls, but its transit infrastructure is a joke comparatively - they take the bus because they want to, because it's seen as socially acceptable, because it's sustainable and communal which are more liberal values and the city leans heavily liberal politically.
Key point: once something is socially acceptable, it's socially acceptable for everyone, not just the people who made it that way. So there are tons of perfectly happy conservatives who probably live perfectly happy carless lives in Portland, and likewise there are tons of liberals who live happy lives in low-density suburbs in Phoenix.
Another key point: it's not "conservatives don't," but rather "liberals do." I'm not trying to say that conservatives don't live in the North and liberals don't live in the Sunbelt. What I'm saying is that the liberal presence in the North creates a positive environment for transit development and the conservative presence in the Sunbelt creates a positive environment for car-oriented development.
Again, this doesn't have to hold true in every single case to be correct and useful.
Really, the first version of this was awe-inspiring, you would have loved it. Such a pity.
Sorry but I have to defend Miami here! I have used public transit in Miami and it's bus system is huge compared to other cities in the sunbelt. It is only one of the 2 major cities in the Southeast to have a heavy rail system ( Atlanta being the other) along with Commuter rail and a 4.8 mile downtown peoplemover that shuttles 30,000 people a day.
You want to call Miami's transit system a joke compared to Mpls? The transit system moves roughly 300,000people a day in a county with 2.5 million people which is more than 10% of the population.
Oh yeah absolutely, Miami's system is way better than the rest of the South, same with Atlanta, and a lot of that just comes with them being denser. Miami has it together compared to Houston. BUT the transit infrastructure in Mpls, Seattle, Portland, etc. is more widespread and usable as a complete system (ie. more than just to, from, and within downtown). The basic point of that was that it's easier to go carless in the North. Miami is a bit of an odd case since South Florida is so unlike the rest of the Southeast, but I'd say the point basically stands.
That really isn't true with Mpls - most of the traffic is in and out from the cities .... it's very commuter focused.
Also, the density, location of jobs and associated costs are huge factors in why things are built and used. There is a perceived value there. More people using it makes it acceptable.
Also, for what it's worth many people thought I was nuts for living in the cities without a car and it most definitely did limit me - especially on weekends and nights.
In Phoenix they built a 20 mile light rail line and are currently extending it another 7 miles
It's larger and has more daily riders than that of Seattle
In Minneapolis the blue line is a little over 12 miles, they are constructing an additional line as well - the 11 mile green line
Tempe currently has a decent people mover circulator bus system in Orbit - they have however commited to a street car system that will be just under 4 miles
So in reality Phoenix has commited a lot of money and have built a ton of infrastructure - ridership isn't poor and all of this despite not having a true jobs center, poor traffic management, expensive parking, etc ....... the main difference is that 27 miles of light rail coverage in the Phoenix metro is a lot different than 27 miles in the other cities ... I believe the 20 mile "starter" line was larger than any other light rail starter line, could be wrong but it would have to be close and I'm pretty sure I heard that
Even with that people out here wish there was more coverage, that it went to a place they wanted to go to or lined up to their travel path
It's way to simple to say "Phoenix is conservative so transit is looked down on" .... that simply isn't the case. It's just not reasonable for a good portion of the metro despite fairly good ridership and a very large investment
I've taken public transit in Seattle, Minneapolis and Portland and I know it's more socially-acceptable in these places to utilize the buses/ transit systems than in Houston or Dallas or Atlanta or Phoenix.
I ask this because Seattle, Portland and Minneapolis are not as dense as the cities that are traditionally known for public transit (NYC, Chicago, Boston, SF)...and don't have the same social acceptance or history re: public transit use. Yet you still wont necessarily get looked down on as you would in the Sunbelt taking public transit.
I disagree. The losers/lower class/criminals ride the bus/light rail in Seattle and Portland. You do get looked down upon, it is just people are not into open mocking as they may be in other places.
Despite the hype, transit use is just a drop in the bucket in these cities. Despite the myths, cool kids don't ride the bus or the purse-snatch-rail.
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.
