U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 10-30-2014, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,272 posts, read 26,286,355 times
Reputation: 11734

Advertisements

I'm really talking about the American legacy transit cities here excluding NYC (DC, Philly, Boston, Chicago, SF). Maybe toss in Portland, LA and Seattle.

I've read some posts where people talk about taking a lane away from cars in that city or taking away two lanes from cars in this city "like they do in Europe." But given where Europe currently is in terms of mass transit compared to the US, are these recommendations really practical? Does the design and structure of American metros make some of the transit solutions we see in Europe impractical/impossible to implement on this side of the pond?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2014, 11:00 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,048,502 times
Reputation: 14811
Do you mean the gap how good / useful Europe is compared to American legacy transit cities? Or how transit friendly the layout is? By ridership, there's some overlap [see graph]:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2012/...-edition/2218/

Milan and Lyon have similar numbers to American transit-friendly cities.

Last edited by nei; 10-30-2014 at 12:43 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 11:08 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,048,502 times
Reputation: 14811
Here's a bus I took last December:

https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=3...m&z=13&start=0

The most congested section between Lombard and Misson is planned to get BRT and take a lane away from cars.

Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit | Home | San Francisco County Transportation Authority

The biggest differences I see between San Francisco and some northern European cities isn't its structure but that the surroundings areas are less transit friendly. That route is crowded enough that good transit makes sense and a car isn't particularly necessary, the advantage of a car is that buses are slow, mainly because they get stuck in traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2014, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,081 posts, read 16,113,519 times
Reputation: 12652
Pretty big, but.

In Europe, most trips are stilling taken with the car as it's generally the better method of getting around, but it's more like 50-65% of trips in Europe vs 85% of trips here in the US.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,272 posts, read 26,286,355 times
Reputation: 11734
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Do you mean the gap how good / useful Europe is compared to American legacy transit cities? Or how transit friendly the layout is?
More the former. I ask because I hear people say things like "we need to take away two of the four lanes on this street and give them to streetcars like they did on a street in Strasbourg" or "we need to close off this arterial street to cars because that's what they did in Rome." I'm wondering if the better transit networks in European cities make certain policy proposals feasible there that would be difficult if not impossible to implement here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 10:19 AM
 
Location: 304
5,093 posts, read 6,868,927 times
Reputation: 1697
I think it's a pretty large gap. But we obviously depend on personal transportation significantly more than European countries. Also our cities are for the most part more spaced out, and it is harder to create mass transit that reaches more people here.

I am a huge fan of creating better mass transit, but I don't think we should be striving to do what they do over seas. Instead, we should be raising the bar, and using innovation to create mass transit. Europe shouldn't be our example, but our underachieving competition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 05:57 PM
 
12,309 posts, read 15,221,779 times
Reputation: 8117
The gap is at least 150 km. Some European cities have transit we can barely dream of. 300 kph intercity trains, rapid transit in small cities, electrified commuter trains all over. Note one of the first points: they increased ridership by focusing on job centers rather than downtown districts. But most bureaucrats work in the downtown districts; the systems work fine for them. They have a blind spot for anyone who works elsewhere.

Last edited by pvande55; 10-31-2014 at 06:05 PM.. Reason: Add lines
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2014, 07:17 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 84,021,758 times
Reputation: 18050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Pretty big, but.

In Europe, most trips are stilling taken with the car as it's generally the better method of getting around, but it's more like 50-65% of trips in Europe vs 85% of trips here in the US.
Notice also with little of its areas developed the Chinese are about to surpass us in super highways. I many places its often about can you afford one and can you find parking space. NY has about all they can handle between private owned and cabs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2014, 02:21 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,959,170 times
Reputation: 1953
I didn't see the details about the data but I'm guessing that it's based on JTW when, at least in the US, that's only about 25% of all trips.

Point being that, without walkability, transit is worthless beyond a really expensive journey-to-work mode.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2014, 11:03 AM
 
Location: bend oregon
930 posts, read 845,826 times
Reputation: 351
light rail works good in the suburbs if its a long line and there isnt a lot of stops.

its way better then a bus if theres free areas to park bikes and stuff.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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