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.
Transit will almost never be as convenient as driving. The reason why it takes 3 hours is because in order to be useful transit must make stops to allow people to get on and off. The route is not direct because few people are starting from where you are starting and ending where you are ending. Your co-workers are not usually your neighbors an so their is likely no direct route from your home to work(nor can there be since everyone who is in that gridlock is going somewhere else).
The car allows greater control of the time at which you must depart, who you sit next to or share the vehicle with and frankly just having an seat is an major advantage. The only times i can think of that are easier on transit are is there is no parking at your destination and there are relatively few places where parking is impossible. Unlike many European countries the US is an large country with lots of land. Only in a few places land values are so high as to make parking an problem. IMHO, anyone who prefers transit over the car is someone who has never been packed in an bus(or train) and had to stand on aching feet after work. Or had an sweating drug addict sit right next to you. Or has had their sense of smell violated by the stench of human waste or an homeless person while riding the bus.
Most who ride my bus each day are going direct. Just because transit isn't convenient for you, doesn't make it less convenient for others.
For me, the bus picks me up a few blocks from my house and drops me off two blocks from my work. That sounds pretty convenient to me. Driving would take about the same amount of time, especially if I am on an express bus.
Most who ride my bus each day are going direct. Just because transit isn't convenient for you, doesn't make it less convenient for others.
For me, the bus picks me up a few blocks from my house and drops me off two blocks from my work. That sounds pretty convenient to me. Driving would take about the same amount of time, especially if I am on an express bus.
For many people there is no express bus, and it takes more than one transit route to get to work. Now if you plan things carefully you could achieve that one route trip but most people don't want to be so limited when it comes to where to live. And people need to make all sorts of trips beyond just work(and cars are very handy for those too).
Atlanta's public transit seriously sucks. All one can do effectively with Marta is Airport to City. I challenge you, try taking PT from Alpharetta to Peachtree center for a Sunday afternoon game.
Works pretty well for going to Georgia Tech football games.
For many people there is no express bus, and it takes more than one transit route to get to work. Now if you plan things carefully you could achieve that one route trip but most people don't want to be so limited when it comes to where to live. And people need to make all sorts of trips beyond just work(and cars are very handy for those too).
And for many people their are direct bus routes and express buses. Are you saying we should get rid of transit or not improve it because it might not be convenient for some right now due to inadequate service?
I wonder how many people make all sorts of trips to and from work everyday. I know my wife and I are not always running errands after work each day. Most days we both come straight home so we can have dinner together.
All I am seeing is excuses on why transit isn't convenient for you, therefore I am giving you examples of how transit is convenient for me. Which one of us is more right?
For many people there is no express bus, and it takes more than one transit route to get to work. Now if you plan things carefully you could achieve that one route trip but most people don't want to be so limited when it comes to where to live. And people need to make all sorts of trips beyond just work(and cars are very handy for those too).
Then you don't understand the purpose of mass transit.
Transit can't serve every trip, especially in a large metro, and it shouldn't bother to try.
Cars take up a lot of road space - especially when they're moving at speed. The more cars there are the more essential functions like merging, exiting, and turning begin to break down and cause delays that ripple across the network creating further delays which then ripple throughout the network and on and on. A reduction of just 7% in auto trips can make the difference between gridlock and free flowing traffic.
The point of transit isn't to get everyone to switch modes like we're living in Pyongyang. The point is to add capacity to the network. Think of it this way - it's like everyone is complaining about slow speeds on their cell network (the highways) so the phone company says, "well listen, if you're home, please use your broadband (transit) network for data and voice because it will free up a lot of bandwidth on our network."
But then you say "not everyone has broadband, duh." And Verizon says, "yeah, we know, but a lot of people do and we only need about 5% of you stop watching youtube on your phone when you're right next to your laptop anyway."
Then you don't understand the purpose of mass transit.
Transit can't serve every trip, especially in a large metro, and it shouldn't bother to try.
Cars take up a lot of road space - especially when they're moving at speed. The more cars there are the more essential functions like merging, exiting, and turning begin to break down and cause delays that ripple across the network creating further delays which then ripple throughout the network and on and on. A reduction of just 7% in auto trips can make the difference between gridlock and free flowing traffic.
The point of transit isn't to get everyone to switch modes like we're living in Pyongyang. The point is to add capacity to the network. Think of it this way - it's like everyone is complaining about slow speeds on their cell network (the highways) so the phone company says, "well listen, if you're home, please use your broadband (transit) network for data and voice because it will free up a lot of bandwidth on our network."
But then you say "not everyone has broadband, duh." And Verizon says, "yeah, we know, but a lot of people do and we only need about 5% of you stop watching youtube on your phone when you're right next to your laptop anyway."
Imagine how great the conversations could be on this forum if everyone could keep this in mind.
Yes, as you said transit isn't going to work well for the majority of Americans. There are plenty of areas where in any practical terms transit will be mostly useless. Whenever I go back to my parent's neighborhood I see infrequent buses. Sure, you could call the transit system inadequate. But most buses run rather empty. There's not much that can be improved, local buses can't cover enough and compete badly time-wise, so few take them. There is no way to have adequate transit except in a few corridors. There are trains, but they are mostly from transit to the city with some exceptions. Efforts to improve local downtowns, make areas more pedestrian or bicycle friendly could relevant but local transit not much. Further west, in denser Nassau County, local bus transit does get some use though it's still relatively minor it's practical enough it's useful to a significant minority some would find it difficult to rely on a car others who would prefer not to drive.
Yeah, buses run empty because we've made driving so practical. Who's going to take an infrequent bus when gas prices are pushed so low, parking is free in so many places and employment centers are so scattered? Not many. And running more buses isn't going to do a thing but encourage more complaining that transit is a waste of money. The only thing that will make people demand options is to let the cost of driving rise. Paying to park, gas prices at international rates, more tolls on roads for maintenance, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
While the US is spread out more than most developed countries and focus its infrastructure on transit less, many other countries have a rather low transit commute share. France, excluding the Paris region, has a transit commute share of 7.5%
Not that familiar with the situation, but my guess is decentralized employment combined with moderate residential densities led most to drive. Note walking has a much higher share.
True, but in most cases, cities in Europe and Asia have much lower rates of driving than America. Looking at modal share for trips to work, and American cities stand out (look at the private motor vehicle column)
Even if public transport is low, it's more likely to be because "walking" is so high, not because so many people are driving. New Zealand and Australia are two countries that stand with America in this regard. And as drive carephilly has mentioned, this is a very limited view because it's only looking at trips to work and back.
Yeah, buses run empty because we've made driving so practical. Who's going to take an infrequent bus when gas prices are pushed so low, parking is free in so many places and employment centers are so scattered? Not many. And running more buses isn't going to do a thing but encourage more complaining that transit is a waste of money. The only thing that will make people demand options is to let the cost of driving rise. Paying to park, gas prices at international rates, more tolls on roads for maintenance, etc.
The latter doesn't follow from the former. You aren't promoting "letting" anything. You seek to affirmatively impose unnecessary costs and fees on folks to promote your public transit agenda. You seem to be indicating that public transit can't compete in a freer market so you need to impose unnecessary costs to create advantages for what is already a heavily subsidized system. How about simply recognizing that it isn't a preferred method and the market isn't there to support it?
The latter doesn't follow from the former. You aren't promoting "letting" anything. You seek to affirmatively impose unnecessary costs and fees on folks to promote your public transit agenda. You seem to be indicating that public transit can't compete in a freer market so you need to impose unnecessary costs to create advantages for what is already a heavily subsidized system. How about simply recognizing that it isn't a preferred method and the market isn't there to support it?
I didn't say this SHOULD happen, I said the only way transit share would rise is if it DID happen. Get the difference?
And I won't break into the cost of free parking, where maintenance for roads is paid from or how our gasoline is subsidized in this thread as it's off-topic and always ends in an argument.
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.
