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 drive cars because its the 21st century. getting rid of cars and using public transportation and bicycles is like selling a DVD player and getting a VCR.
I don't think this is a good argument. have you seen what can happen in a large metro when everyone has to use their cars? BART, the heavy rail system in the San Francisco Bay Area went on strike a couple of years ago. the buses were able to absord a few thousand but pretty much, an extra 400,000 people were forced onto already congested roads. If public transportation wasn't around, we would be spending half our days in cars. Not working, not eating but just going to those places. Cars were great when we only had half the population but in the 21st century, sitting in gridlock as opposed to blazing though it in a tunnel or something is like trading in your broadband internet for dial-up.
Have you ever ridden light rail in a US city? the thing is, many cities are building more of them and expanding existing ones. It's heavy rail that seems to be avoided these days due to cost even though in many metros, it would be more efficient.
Light rail frequently takes longer than it should to get places. It's limited in it's carrying capacity compared to heavy rail and it has to wait at traffic lights in city centers when it's on the streets. the San Diego Trolley is one example of a poorly thought out system. Two lines, the blue and green really should just be one line but instead one ends in an odd place then you must walk around a building to get to the other and this is after they once met at another station which was a smoother transition but this too is after they expanded the blue line farther out. See, there used to actually just be one line so now unnecessary time is added to your trip when it doesn't have to be not to mention, there are too many stops.
You do make a great point. US cities are more likely to build a light rail system than a heavy rail subway system. It's rare to find a US city building a brand new subway system these days. Usually cities that are expanding subway service are places that already had a subway system in place for a long time aka NYC, Washington DC, etc.
Bus-Rapid-Transit seems to be growing more in popularity as more and more US cities are considering it as a serious alternative to rail service.
I'm inclined to like light rail. I like urban environments and public transportation. But almost everyone in the United States, seemingly, hates light rail and has convincing arguments for why every project is an expensive boondoggle. The cost per lane of light rail vs. freeways, as well as the amount of people each lane typically carries, is hard to argue against - the freeway wins hands down on both accounts.
Yet I've been having a hard time wrapping my head around this. How is that "poorer" countries can afford excellent transit systems, but for some reason it's so prohibitively costly and disliked on US soil? Something doesn't add up. My gut instinct is that Americans are so used to driving and so overburdened with personal debts that they can't see the forest from the trees.
But of course, there's probably a throng of people frothing at the mouth ready to tell me why that's not true, either.
Is it just that Americans view transit as for poor people, and that the "wealthy" people of the US have better things to spend their time and money on?
No, no. It can't be that, either.
Could someone please explain this to a simpleton like me? Thank you.
It's all about the NIMBY philosophy. "We love the idea of light rail - just don't put it in my backyard!"
People want better public transportation so that we can reduce dependence on $4/gallon gasoline, but nobody wants trains rumbling away close to their houses (not like it matters anyway - I live <500 feet from tracks that carry freight trains at all hours of the day and night and they never impede my sleep) and they don't want their downtowns carved up or hollowed out to make way for rail stations / terminals.
I live near Erie, PA. There are signs up all over town, in people's front yards, that say "Keep it MADE IN ERIE!!" with a picture of a locomotive. GE has a huge locomotive plant in Lawrence Park, on the east side of Erie. People in the entire region must think that GE is considering relocating or shutting down this plant. So they're trying hard to rally popular opinion in favor of keeping the plant there. Yet, in the nearby hamlet of Harborcreek, there are signs up all over the place talking about "NO RAIL TERMINAL HERE!" "KEEP THE RAIL TERMINAL OUT!", etc. So they want trains to be made in the area, but they don't want trains to operate in the area. Ooooo-kaaaayyyyyyyy.
You do make a great point. US cities are more likely to build a light rail system than a heavy rail subway system. It's rare to find a US city building a brand new subway system these days. Usually cities that are expanding subway service are places that already had a subway system in place for a long time aka NYC, Washington DC, etc.
Bus-Rapid-Transit seems to be growing more in popularity as more and more US cities are considering it as a serious alternative to rail service.
As far as I know, the newest heavy rail system in the US is LA's Metro (not to be confused with the Metrolink). It opened in the early 90's I believe. the Rapid bus services is catching on too. Along the west coast both AC Transit in the east SF Bay Area and San Diego's MTS now have Rapid bus services.
Come on, man. This isn't right and you know it. It's okay to admit sometimes that certain things could use improvement instead of being defensive about every little thing concerning the United States.
It is not comparable to trading a DVD for a VCR. A reliance on personal vehicles cuts up cities and countryside with more freeways and roads compared to areas that rely more on public transportation. PT is easier on the environment and becoming more efficient and speedy with every passing year. Urban dwellers will get somewhere far faster on even light rail than a vehicle clogged road system. And not all light rail travels on the road.
Furthermore, it (cars) are just not sustainable as we know them right now. Fuel is a limited commodity and it becomes more expensive and problematic to drive a car faster than it does with a train. Sure, someday they can be entirely electric, but the trend is moving towards compacted and more efficent urban environments, and cars will always be cumbersome and succomb to bad traffic.
I am not being defensive, i kind of agree with the statement that a lot of Americans "hate" light rail. no they don't HATE they just prefer a vehicle. most of us live in sprawled out environments where everyone owns a car but the population is low enough where it doesnt cause huge gridlock. i would support light rail in certain parts of our urban environments, shoot i would love to see streets in manhattan shut down to traffic and just have a light rail or street car down the middle, but just not on not such main streets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
The average American has no interest in learning anything from other 1st world nations. We are exceptional remember, lol.
Yes, correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
^^^This, but like I said, subways (heavy rail) tend to be more expensive than most metros are willing to pay.
Yes unfortunately, but i would totally trade our light rails (one current line, one opening in a couple week and one in the planning stages) just for one subway line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
I don't think this is a good argument. have you seen what can happen in a large metro when everyone has to use their cars? BART, the heavy rail system in the San Francisco Bay Area went on strike a couple of years ago. the buses were able to absord a few thousand but pretty much, an extra 400,000 people were forced onto already congested roads. If public transportation wasn't around, we would be spending half our days in cars. Not working, not eating but just going to those places. Cars were great when we only had half the population but in the 21st century, sitting in gridlock as opposed to blazing though it in a tunnel or something is like trading in your broadband internet for dial-up.
In a big urban environment like San Francisco i can see the need for public transportation.
People in the big cities can use public transportation for short distance trips and use their car for long distance trips.
Because everybody gets to pay for it and very few people get to use it. The few people that use is continue to get their transportation subsidized by everyone else, those who can't use it, year after year into infinity.
Transit is a boon to everyone in the city, not just the ones who use it. The ones who refuse to get out of their cars have benefit of many fewer cars to compete with for road space.
And everyone CAN use transit, too many just WON'T.
Yes unfortunately, but i would totally trade our light rails (one current line, one opening in a couple week and one in the planning stages) just for one subway line.
In a big urban environment like San Francisco i can see the need for public transportation.
People in the big cities can use public transportation for short distance trips and use their car for long distance trips.
I understand completely. I would happily trade in the San Diego Trolley lines for one efficient heavy rail line. San Diego was so lazy that the original line (now the Blue line) only costs 2 million dollars to complete in 1982 because it used an existing railroad line that ran between downtown SD and the border. this was good for those who lived in our south bay communities and worked downtown, and those who live in Tijuana but work on this side of the border but useless for most everyone else as that line runs along the western-most edge of SD, National City and Chula Vista, the outskirts pretty much. The Orange and Green lines serve inland areas in an east-west direction and the lines merge near the eastern limits (useless!). There is no inland line that runs north/south.
Now, I think when people talk about public vs private transportation, they are referring to urban areas and every day commuting as that's where the problems are. taking road trips and vacations are totally different. I for one would not want to attempt to go on a camping trip to the wilderness on public transportation.
Transit is a boon to everyone in the city, not just the ones who use it. The ones who refuse to get out of their cars have benefit of many fewer cars to compete with for road space.
And everyone CAN use transit, too many just WON'T.
Except that not everyone who is paying for it lives in the city, or even near the city, nor do they ever go to the city. Light rail isn't taking any traffic off the roads in my area.
Except that not everyone who is paying for it lives in the city, or even near the city, nor do they ever go to the city.
Wake up! You're paying for freeways and roads you don't use all the time - almost any major infrastructural project in the US is awash in federal funds. And let's not forget that you're paying for ridiculously expensive military operations undertaken to control oil prices. But a rail line in your state that you may not use is breaking your back? People have such weird ways of reasoning.
Wake up! You're paying for freeways and roads you don't use all the time - almost any major infrastructural project in the US is awash in federal funds. And let's not forget that you're paying for ridiculously expensive military operations undertaken to control oil prices. But a rail line in your state that you may not use is breaking your back? People have such weird ways of reasoning.
Exactly.
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.
