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.
Quicker for people living further out would need a combination of local and express buses with easy transfer stations for people to go from a local to express bus. Also, light rail is a good option for providing regional transit with running busses to and from those stations to the surrounding areas.
Obviously this is just a short answer, a better answer would require research on where people are commuting to and from and how to improve transit along those routes.
The problem with your idea is that not everyone living further out wants to come in. If they live north of the city, they may not want to go south at all- maybe they need to go east or west or north. The hub and spokes configuration that you're alluding to makes assumptions that aren't true in all- or even a majority- of cases.
If someone lives 15 miles due north of the city, and their employment destination is 13 miles NNE of the city, its a long slow bus ride to get them into the city to go back out.
The other benefit is cost. While driving isn't much more expensive than transit, when you already own a car, transit is much cheaper than not owning a car at all. If the inconvenience of transit over driving isn't that big, some might not get a car at all and rely on transit. Say a family having one car instead of two. The rural poor and sometimes suburban poor have cars, while the urban poor don't. In cities where the advantage of driving is rather low, some non-poor won't drive either. A 20-something out of college in say Boston getting an decent but not great salary might forgo a car, one in many other American cities probably wouldn't.
If a city is really lucky, it will enjoy what Portland enjoys, which is people who take transit by choice. Those are people who own cars and still take transit.
The problem with your idea is that not everyone living further out wants to come in. If they live north of the city, they may not want to go south at all- maybe they need to go east or west or north. The hub and spokes configuration that you're alluding to makes assumptions that aren't true in all- or even a majority- of cases.
If someone lives 15 miles due north of the city, and their employment destination is 13 miles NNE of the city, its a long slow bus ride to get them into the city to go back out.
I guess that depends, is there just one person making these commutes from these two locations or is it a lot of people that can justify a route that runs between those two places? Not all bus and rail lines need to go downtown.
Depends, if the system is actually a good system, time planning shouldn't be an issue. For me, I live where transit is good. I have 4 buses on a 15 minute schedule, plus one express that runs during rush hour. I can leave my house when ever and know that within 15 minutes I will be catching one of several buses.
I live in an area about equally served by transit, however I also have an car and in 15 mins. I could be far away and even approaching my destination vs. still waiting on the bus.
From figure 3. From figure 1, you can see there's a rather large difference in public transit per capita share. Sure, driving is still the majority mode. But it's not the mode the way it is in most of the US.
Transit is a bigger piece of the pie in Europe, but the automobile is still the better option for most Europeans as well even with their better transit systems.
The numbers in the OP are of work trips so the work trip numbers I posted are comparable to the OP. That link doesn't include trips on foot. Can't remember the link, but I remember reading somewhere that half of trips in Spain are on foot, among the highest in Europe though other countries have a higher transit share. Is that link by trip or by distance? It's easier to do multiple separate trips by car rather than transit, while transit trips people tend to combine.
From your link, you can see the poorest Eastern European countries have a high transit share. The fact its mostly from bus gives a hint that much of it is from being too poor to afford cars.
The numbers in the OP are of work trips so the work trip numbers I posted are comparable to the OP. That link doesn't include trips on foot. Can't remember the link, but I remember reading somewhere that half of trips in Spain are on foot, among the highest in Europe though other countries have a higher transit share. Is that link by trip or by distance? It's easier to do multiple separate trips by car rather than transit, while transit trips people tend to combine.
From your link, you can see the poorest Eastern European countries have a high transit share. The fact its mostly from bus gives a hint that much of it is from being too poor to afford cars.
Link is self-explanatory. It is modal split (%). Modal split is the percentage of trips taken by various modes.
OP asked people to discuss. I discussed. Cars are more practical for most Americans and Europeans than transit. The numbers reflect that. The 80% was not in response to the OP, it was in response to another poster who said it showed we have poor transit, which is incorrect. In Europe where transit is generally better and who we're often told we need to behave more like, cars are also the better choice than transit as well for the majority of people.
You do bring up a point with walking, however. In some walkable neighborhoods, people do walk. In others like Orenco Station in Portland people still don't really walk for many of their trips (but far more than typical suburban construction). That's probably a combination of factors. Development beyond the neighborhood level (Orenco Station is a walkable neighborhood in an unwalkable area. Learned behavior: I found it disconcerting when I first returned to the States. I'd lived in Seattle for a bit over a year and a half, mostly in highly walkable areas and without a car for over a year. Then I'd lived in Prague for about four months and then Korea for almost a year. It bothered me when I came back to an unwalkable neighborhood that I really had nothing I could walk to. It's pretty normal now. I kind of find the opposite, actually. Sometimes when I'm out of the house for work I'll start heading for my car instinctively even though I could walk there out of habit. Development like Orenco Station isn't likely to be very attractive for someone who want to live in the Pearl as it is for someone who used to driving everywhere.
I live in an area about equally served by transit, however I also have an car and in 15 mins. I could be far away and even approaching my destination vs. still waiting on the bus.
15 minutes is the max wait time, usually it is only a couple minutes of waiting.
If 15 minutes is the maximum wait time, the average is 7 1/2 minutes.
Or in Portland, probably about four minutes. Any more than that and, as they say, you can just pop into a bar and have a pint instead of waiting
Kids need to be picked up from school? Have a pint.
Gotta be at work? Have a pint.
It's Pintland Time!
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.
