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)
 
Old 01-20-2015, 03:25 PM
 
410 posts, read 390,446 times
Reputation: 500

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That sounds like an unlikely average speed unless you're on rural roads. Lights and some traffic should pull the average way down. Unless you were on an expressway the entire drive. But even then, part of the trip involves getting to and from the expressway where the average speed is lower and if the trip is during or near rush hour, 55+ on an expressway in a big metro sounds unrealistic.
Driving 20+ miles on metro Detroit surface streets without hitting a red light.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkf7iLSblZ0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-20-2015, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,726,427 times
Reputation: 26676
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
NYC population=8.4M X 55% who take transit = 4.6M
US population=316M. X 5% who take transit = 15M

So almost a third of all transit commuters in the US are in New York! But this mainly reflects the superior level of service in NYC.

What you may want to consider is this: what percentage of Americans have access to public transportation as a viable means of commuting to work (say, a travel time no longer than 1.5 times the peak-hour drive time with frequent service)? Now what percentage of these people commute via mass transit--that's a statistic I'd like to see.
I work in downtown San Francisco. I believe the stat for commutes into SF works out to be about 65% for transit. It would never be faster for me to drive to work. I do not even consider getting in my car to SF during the work week. It would take at least 2x longer than transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,580,362 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder View Post
I suppose I could use public transportation to get to work...
  • Walk ten miles to the bus stop that's closest to my house
  • Ride the bus for fifteen minutes
  • Get off at the bus stop that's closest to where I work
  • Walk eight miles to work from that bus stop
Nah - I think I'll just drive to work.
I would drive too, sounds like an inadequate transit system where you live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 04:47 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,866,195 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
That sounds like an unlikely average speed unless you're on rural roads. Lights and some traffic should pull the average way down. Unless you were on an expressway the entire drive. But even then, part of the trip involves getting to and from the expressway where the average speed is lower and if the trip is during or near rush hour, 55+ on an expressway in a big metro sounds unrealistic.
Mostly expressway and for the most part after or before rush hour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 04:53 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,580,362 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirack View Post
Mostly expressway and for the most part after or before rush hour.
Even still, once on the streets, your average speed would go down, especially if you stop at lights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-20-2015, 05:42 PM
 
Location: Richmond/Philadelphia/Brooklyn
1,263 posts, read 1,275,720 times
Reputation: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
Driving 20+ miles on metro Detroit surface streets without hitting a red light.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkf7iLSblZ0
That's called pure luck
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 07:56 AM
 
410 posts, read 390,446 times
Reputation: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pantin23 View Post
That's called pure luck
Skill my friend . Metro Detroit is home of the Michigan left turn which eliminates left turn phases and increases the green band for drivers. In addition, superstreet designs at half-mile signals helps maximizes signal progression along major corridors in the region.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 08:21 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 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Area doesn't look very developed though.

Last edited by nei; 01-21-2015 at 08:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,343,644 times
Reputation: 3562
After reading several pages of this thread, here is what I see in a nutshell:

- Urban transit riders, who live someplace where transit is pervasive enough to be convenient, argue the benefits of public transit and want more.
- Suburban posters, who live in car-centric locations where transit options are barely even a second thought, argue that transit doesn't work well enough to ever be useful. These folks do not want to spend money on transit projects, or at least, they want to spend as little as possible. Many don't like transit, even if it were a convenient option.***
- Rural posters, who obviously live someplace where transit isn't an option, argue that transit doesn't work well enough to ever be used.

***There are a few anomalies in all cases. In a few cases, it seems a suburban poster wants better transit, but can't. Many times this is someone who sees a car as a hefty expense.

What seems to be largely ignored are the building blocks of the US economy and the existing built environment IMO. The USA's economy is built on car purchases and housing. A reduction in the number of automobile purchases, road building or a lull in newly built homes and we spin into a downward spiral economically. Then there's oil and gasoline purchases. There is a reason the USA has absolutely very little following in the way of transit.

And of course transit isn't going to work for someone working in Collierville, TN and living in Southhaven, MS when the central city has anemic transit options in the first place. We have sunk our money as a country into a single mode of transportation so heavily for the past 60 years that there are a small handful of places where real options actually exist. The USA isn't unique in geography, climate or most anything else tangible that stops it from investing in transit. It's unique in mindset; in the great riches and industrial success following WWII (the rest of the industrialized world was bombed out) that allowed a burgeoning middle class buy personal automobiles at a rate that was unfathomable by the rest of the world. We invested in roads, dismantled train service, and left our transit systems stagnant. And from that history, we are now here, getting poorer as a much larger nation with a single mode of transportation for at least 85% of Americans. A country built at a very low density with only the automobile in mind (first thought at least), talking about how to throw in another option that's largely unpopular (due to inexperience, the idea of change, cost, preference, etc.).

I guess my point in all this rambling is that there is such a very large lack of perspective on these boards sometimes (and I'm guilty too). Transit will never serve a majority of Americans, nor should anyone make that argument. The person living a rural or low-density suburban life (not inner-ring or streetcar) will likely never take transit in their lifetime unless they want to. Any arguments outside improving the densest corridors in metros with real traffic and places that really need to be connected, are not worth having IMO. And I think the percentages in the OP show that's the case.

Last edited by AJNEOA; 01-21-2015 at 08:35 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2015, 08:41 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 42,070,148 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
The person living a rural or low-density suburban life (not inner-ring or streetcar) will likely never take transit in their lifetime unless they want to.
To nitpick, one of my parents lives in a large lot suburbia and takes transit every day. Drives to the train station then takes the train to Manhattan. And yes, not bothered by buses if that's what's available in the city (say going around to a few spots in Philadelphia). There's a number of train lines for New York City going through rather low density often affluent areas that get decent ridership, even decent ridership on weekends. Boston and Philadelphia have similar but their ridership isn't as high. The density is low at one end, but the other end is car unfriendly. That situation often has a higher transit use the opposite: moderately high suburban densities but decentralized destinations.

Edit: there are a few census tracts in Westchester that are large lot suburbia with a 25%+ transit share

Last edited by nei; 01-21-2015 at 09:44 AM..
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
Similar Threads
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