U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2017, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Lone Mountain Las Vegas NV
12,757 posts, read 4,830,944 times
Reputation: 5670

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
Well, I'm not suggesting we run a subway line to your cabin in the mountains. But for the 70% of the population, the infrastructure is severely lacking and that's because we build around the car. But you may be right in that that will never change for most places in this sprawling country.

Autonomous vehicles will be a big improvement, but they will not fix everything. And they are a ways off from being a public good. A lot has to change, including culture, which is something transit and autonomous vehicles will have in common.
I live in the middle of the suburban belt that encircles Las Vegas and has most of the population. With the section line boulevards there are few that live anywhere near a bus route. The population density is low and is going to stay that way.

I would agree autonomous vehicles will not fix everything. But what they will do is close down conventional transit. Some will survive...like the express busses to downtown...but the standard route bus will be no more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2017, 05:36 PM
 
2,289 posts, read 1,293,708 times
Reputation: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
"Freedom" is synonymous with the automobile.
Come to think of it, this could also be said of the bicycle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 06:32 PM
 
2,289 posts, read 1,293,708 times
Reputation: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123 View Post
Transit Oriented Development should include a host of complimentary mobility options,

Dedicated cycling lanes + cycling storage + pedestrian friendly streets + frequent bus service + streetcar/heavy rail (in high density areas) + car-sharing options (electric car rentals, reserved parking for those who car pool/car share, etc.)
.
"Car-sharing options"....you mean like zipcar? I hadn't thought of that.

Again with rail, there a few place with sufficient density to make them practical, but they are a must, because they are fashionable among planners. So we should expect a future with trophy trains that soak up much of the funding, and anemic at best bus service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2017, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Downtown & Brooklyn!
2,110 posts, read 1,303,876 times
Reputation: 1825
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123 View Post
I used to pay nearly $300 / month to State Farm for auto insurance in Boston. Granted, Boston is a more dense city with a fare amount of traffic collisions, but $300/month just for car insurance is a complete ripoff.

Now, I live and work in Toronto and pay $141 per month for a transit pass - which includes access to all subway, streetcar, and bus routes in the city.

Sold my car, switched to transit. Less costly, reduced stress, less CO2 pollution and good for the environment, increased my daily Fitbit steps and better health. Best decision I ever made.
The environmental benefits are huge and often overlooked. I'm glad somebody else mentioned it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92 View Post
That still seems like a steal to me, that's significantly less than I pay for insurance on my car!

Considering that a "Local" pass for DART costs $80 (regional is $160) for a much inferior system $121 a month for all your transportation needs is a pretty great deal IMHO.

Considering that salaries are much higher in NYC and everything costs more, $121 is probably a pretty small percentage of most folks monthly expenses, no?

I mean that is the beauty of public transit done right, it's pretty cost effective for the consumer.
Yeah, I guess it is a good deal. I'm surprised to see that a lot of these other cities with much smaller metro systems charging more.

What is the difference between a local pass and a regional pass? I'm just curious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 07:18 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
396 posts, read 270,040 times
Reputation: 379
Most Americans love the freedom of having and using exclusively a motor vehicle. Coupled with lower density suburban sprawl, this results in low walkability. Also all mid-sized and many large cities are lacking a useful subway system. I would hope mass transit would be a priority in all large and mid-sized cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 12:55 PM
 
Location: "The Dirty Irv" Irving, TX
2,804 posts, read 1,295,354 times
Reputation: 3204
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
Yeah, I guess it is a good deal. I'm surprised to see that a lot of these other cities with much smaller metro systems charging more.

What is the difference between a local pass and a regional pass? I'm just curious.
Local basically includes the Dart system, trains and buses and half the TRE (heavy rail commuter train between Dallas and Fort Worth). Regional includes the rest of the TRE, Fort Worth's bus network and the DCTA in Denton County (basically a commuter train that begins at the end of the DART and goes to Denton County.

Local day pass runs 5 bucks with unlimited transfers and regional runs 10.

I think alot of systems charge more because unlike NYC, they have pretty low ridership numbers and run pretty deep in the red. The the better transit networks (NYC Chicago DC) run close to and often above capacity so they are more "efficient" for lack of a better word, at getting riders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 01:52 PM
 
2,557 posts, read 2,176,151 times
Reputation: 1810
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy View Post
Yeah, I guess it is a good deal. I'm surprised to see that a lot of these other cities with much smaller metro systems charging more.
Simple answer is economies of scale. Cities with higher ridership = higher transit revenue = more funding and political interest for transit expansion and maintenance = a virtuous cycle. Cities with already declining ridership like what we see in Baltimore, Detroit typically go in the opposite direction: ridership decline = slash transit funding = cut existing service = more ridership decline = creating a vicious downward spiral and creating a perpetual perception that "transit is bad in this country". The reality is that it doesn't have to remain "bad": the bad transit that we have today is the work of our own doing, after years of funding cuts, service cuts, and development policies favoring the suburban sprawl. I think we have to be fully aware that things aren't just going to naturally change for the better unless we - our local and state governments, our elected representatives, and us as voters - take active and firm actions towards improving public transit for our communities.

Even small, personal actions add up. For example, instead of driving 5 days a week to work, ditch your car for 2 days and instead take the bus/bike/walk/car pool to work. For those of us who live in transit-rich areas, perhaps try and live completely without a car for a month by making small adjustments to our daily routines. When I sold my car earlier this year, I had to make various adjustments in my daily routines: I bought a pair of comfy walking/running shoes for the daily walk to the office; I left home 20-30 minutes earlier to give me ample time in case of bus/subway delays; I packed everything I needed for the day into a small backpack that's easy to carry and walk around with, things like lunch box, gym and workout clothing, laptop, water bottle). The result: my daily physical activity levels increased significantly (my Fitbit step count increased by 200% on average), and allowed me to explore on foot many parts of the city that I previously never had the opportunity to stop by while sitting in a sedan.

Last edited by bostonkid123; 10-06-2017 at 02:03 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,326,260 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123 View Post
Simple answer is economies of scale. Cities with higher ridership = higher transit revenue = more funding and political interest for transit expansion and maintenance = a virtuous cycle. Cities with already declining ridership like what we see in Baltimore, Detroit typically go in the opposite direction: ridership decline = slash transit funding = cut existing service = more ridership decline = creating a vicious downward spiral and creating a perpetual perception that "transit is bad in this country". The reality is that it doesn't have to remain "bad": the bad transit that we have today is the work of our doing, after years of funding cuts, service cuts, and development policies favoring the suburban sprawl. I think we have to be fully aware that things aren't just going to naturally change for the better unless we - local and state governments, our elected representatives, and voters - take active and firm actions towards improving transit for our communities.
The bold is logical and thoughtful, but does not consider the pure idiocy of transportation in the USA. Philly continually struggles to keep an adequate budget, despite having decent farebox recovery. And even when ridership is rising, the state continues to keep the system crawling when it should be heavily investing.

In smaller and mid-sized cities, politicians sometimes invest unwisely by building an expensive rail line (ONE line) expecting higher ridership numbers. But these people don't understand that connectivity, coverage and quality mean everything. The smaller the system, the less effective it is because it only serves a small segment of people going from A to B; C is not serviced, much less Z. But the public lashes out against the failure, believing that only cars work in America because America is so special/different. It's really American Exceptionalism as a cultural landmine that keeps Americans from realizing there is a better way to develop and provide options for transportation than just more low density neighborhoods connected by roads. That perception keeps the machine alive IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2017, 02:21 PM
 
2,557 posts, read 2,176,151 times
Reputation: 1810
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
The bold is logical and thoughtful, but does not consider the pure idiocy of transportation in the USA. Philly continually struggles to keep an adequate budget, despite having decent farebox recovery. And even when ridership is rising, the state continues to keep the system crawling when it should be heavily investing.

In smaller and mid-sized cities, politicians sometimes invest unwisely by building an expensive rail line (ONE line) expecting higher ridership numbers. But these people don't understand that connectivity, coverage and quality mean everything. The smaller the system, the less effective it is because it only serves a small segment of people going from A to B; C is not serviced, much less Z. But the public lashes out against the failure, believing that only cars work in America because America is so special/different. It's really American Exceptionalism as a cultural landmine that keeps Americans from realizing there is a better way to develop and provide options for transportation than just more low density neighborhoods connected by roads. That perception keeps the machine alive IMO.
I agree with you. Simply raising ridership is not going to sway current perceptions of public transit, much less how many politicians allocate transit dollars.

I also agree that this perception that the automobile is the ONLY transport option is still alive and well in America today. However, I think the only way to change perception/culture/status quo is by changing behavior. People don't like to change the status quo, and the only way is to induce change. For example, if given a choice, almost every driver on the street would happily drive 80-100 mph - but lucky for us, we have strict speeding laws and strict law enforcement that strongly deters against such behavior. When the automobile was first introduced in the early 20th century, I'm sure the horse-drawn carriage operators weren't pleased - but we moved ahead anyway and paved every single street in the country with asphalt roads that were purpose built for the automobile and a whole host of modern infrastructure like subways, electric trams, and elevated trains. At the end of the day, it comes down to political will, and how willing are our elected representatives to change the status quo instead of leading us down a regressive path like it's business as usual.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2017, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Downtown & Brooklyn!
2,110 posts, read 1,303,876 times
Reputation: 1825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92 View Post
Local basically includes the Dart system, trains and buses and half the TRE (heavy rail commuter train between Dallas and Fort Worth). Regional includes the rest of the TRE, Fort Worth's bus network and the DCTA in Denton County (basically a commuter train that begins at the end of the DART and goes to Denton County.

Local day pass runs 5 bucks with unlimited transfers and regional runs 10.

I think alot of systems charge more because unlike NYC, they have pretty low ridership numbers and run pretty deep in the red. The the better transit networks (NYC Chicago DC) run close to and often above capacity so they are more "efficient" for lack of a better word, at getting riders.
That’s not a bad deal at all actually given that it includes commuter rail. You don’t even wanna know what the MetroNorth or Long Island Railroad goes for

Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonkid123 View Post
Simple answer is economies of scale. Cities with higher ridership = higher transit revenue = more funding and political interest for transit expansion and maintenance = a virtuous cycle. Cities with already declining ridership like what we see in Baltimore, Detroit typically go in the opposite direction: ridership decline = slash transit funding = cut existing service = more ridership decline = creating a vicious downward spiral and creating a perpetual perception that "transit is bad in this country". The reality is that it doesn't have to remain "bad": the bad transit that we have today is the work of our own doing, after years of funding cuts, service cuts, and development policies favoring the suburban sprawl. I think we have to be fully aware that things aren't just going to naturally change for the better unless we - our local and state governments, our elected representatives, and us as voters - take active and firm actions towards improving public transit for our communities.
That makes too much sense. I’d love for someone to explain that to Cuomo

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
The bold is logical and thoughtful, but does not consider the pure idiocy of transportation in the USA. Philly continually struggles to keep an adequate budget, despite having decent farebox recovery. And even when ridership is rising, the state continues to keep the system crawling when it should be heavily investing.

In smaller and mid-sized cities, politicians sometimes invest unwisely by building an expensive rail line (ONE line) expecting higher ridership numbers. But these people don't understand that connectivity, coverage and quality mean everything. The smaller the system, the less effective it is because it only serves a small segment of people going from A to B; C is not serviced, much less Z. But the public lashes out against the failure, believing that only cars work in America because America is so special/different. It's really American Exceptionalism as a cultural landmine that keeps Americans from realizing there is a better way to develop and provide options for transportation than just more low density neighborhoods connected by roads. That perception keeps the machine alive IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top