Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (regional, Boston)

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think Jade408 hit the nail on the head...............it's mostly cultural.

Americans like their space and embrace individualism. That certainly doesn't mean they don't care for their fellow citizens but it does mean that Americans view individual responsibility and independence far higher than nearly any country.

Americans prize their liberty and their liberty from government interference in their lives. Americans have a natural distrust of both governments and their intentions. Public transit, by it's very definition, is a public service provided for the masses and Americans often view government programs as a step towards socialism.

Public transit spending is seen as a way the government spends money for people to act communally while government money on roads is seen as the way governments spend money to enhance one's independence and individual liberty and mobility.

People will point to NYC & SF as a counter argument but the reality is that those cities simply reinforce the idea as NY & SF are the most "un-American" of all American cities.

While I think there is certainly some truth to this kind of rhetoric, especially with the recent rise of tea party and libertarian movements, every time I see it, I will propose that the US population falls on a bell curve. Some people--at the extremes--are extremely pro-car and pro-transit. But, most people don't care, to one degree or another.


If we hadn't spent the last 60-70 years making our transportation infrastructure auto-dependent, and we had good public transit, a large chunk of the population would use that, and still not care. As it is, it's simply easier to use a car, throughout most of the US.


There are many people (though certainly not a majority) who might not like to drive, but do so because they don't really have a choice, don't feel that strongly about it, and so choose to live in an auto-dependent location because they consider other factors to be more important. Others, who feel a bit more strongly about the subject, are increasingly choosing walkable areas, where they can get by car-lite.


For me, I don't have the ability to drive. So, I have a different perspective. I see people shackled to their car, and public transit provides more freedom, as it allows a choice to not use a car.

[nei]

Originally Posted by chirack

Many old downtowns had trolleys and some still have commuter rail. The car was competitive from day 1. I could probably drive an model T faster than a modern CTA bus. The problem with rail is that it can't go everywhere and street cars(if they share the street with other traffic) are not faster than the bus. Rail has higher fixed costs than buses which makes it less attractive.

One difference I notice with Europe is buses more often have their own lanes and streetcars usually run on their own right-of-way lessening or eliminating the speed advantage. And are often given signal priority compared to American systems. Streetcar line in the center of Dusseldorf:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2135...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Skimming through Dusseldorf, it appears far more destinations are in the city center than most American cities, making transit more likely to go where you'd want. And it does look the city has expressways almost to the center cities.

[nei]

Originally Posted by JR_C

While I think there is certainly some truth to this kind of rhetoric, especially with the recent rise of tea party and libertarian movements, every time I see it, I will propose that the US population falls on a bell curve. Some people--at the extremes--are extremely pro-car and pro-transit. But, most people don't care, to one degree or another.

Yea, I'm always skeptical of saying it's cultural differences. I think they're overrated; people choose to drive or take transit depending on it's convenient or cost-effective. That doesn't it has to be faster, some may choose transit if it's 25% slower based on cost or other factors; not many would take transit if it's over double the time.

Culture does change a bit what's normal; if almost everyone they know drives everywhere, people will be less likely to consider not driving.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Minato ku

While Europeans may work closer and use less their cars, don't believe that the majority of European work next to their houses and use bike or public transportation to work.
Cars still rules and car ownership is not a luxury at all in Europe.

In France, 73% of the commutes to work are done by car (this includes truck and) van.
Note that the high size of Paris metropolitan area relative to France reduces this percentage (imagine if New York City metro area was almost 20% of United States population).
You need to see France without Paris to get a more accurate vision.
If we exclude Paris metropolitan area, then 80% of the commutes to work are done by car.

How do other European countries compare? Is France outside Paris on the lower end for western Europe?

Canada has a slightly higher transit commute rate than France excluding Paris; perhaps we could take about innate Canadian- French cultural differences in transit use.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by chirack

The problem with automation is that those systems are not as good at handling the unexpected or security problems.

I can only speak for our automated system in Vancouver, running since 1986 and expanding over the years.

There are transit employees that travel between stations, helping people who have questions as well as keeping an eye on things. There are of course camera's as well.

On top of that there are Transit Police that patrol the trains and the stations.

Just because the trains don't have drivers, doesn't mean there aren't people about to take care of things.

[Minato ku]

Originally Posted by nei

Skimming through Dusseldorf, it appears far more destinations are in the city center than most American cities, making transit more likely to go where you'd want. And it does look the city has expressways almost to the center cities.

German city centers are often surrounded by wide roads.
There is the center with its pedestrian area and small streets but it is surrounded by large boulevards.

Originally Posted by nei

How do other European countries compare? Is France outside Paris on the lower end for western Europe?

I don't know and don't have data for other european countries but French tend to be more suburban and exurban than most of the other Europeans.

Originally Posted by nei

Canada has a slightly higher transit commute rate than France excluding Paris; perhaps we could take about innate Canadian- French cultural differences in transit use.

But don't forget that the large size of Toronto and Montreal compared to Canada.
Even if those cities are more car depend than Paris, they may heightening the ratio of people using public transport to work in Canada.

In the case of France, the difference between Paris and the rest is so big that you often have to exclude it to get a more accurate picture of the country.
In the case of the United States, New York City may be very different but the weight of New York City in the American population is not big enough to make a difference.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

OK, I see your point.



While I agree with point 1, I think point 2 is an exaggeration. Europe was also cultivated, etc long before the US. Some of their cities also got blown away in WW II and they had to start over.

Yes, but there was already a culture of transit, walking, biking, and centralization around a town centre. They rebuilt in the pattern they understood. If let's say Atlanta was destroyed tomorrow, it would still come back largely sprawling because that is what we know!

[Tim Randal Walker]

There was a thread which asked this question-why doesn't the U.S.A. have cities built like European cities?

Because the U.S.A. lacks the European traditions of city building and city living.

[kitty61]

Originally Posted by David2300

After spending lots of time in Prague in the Czech Republic, I could get around without using any sort of automobile. The tram stopped right in front of my hotel and the Metro got me everywhere. So, after using the amazing public transportation of Prague, it was a real slap in the face when I returned to the US. Why is it that other countries like Germany, Portugal, and the Czech Republic have such great and efficient public transportation while most cities in the US only have buses (see the disaster of public transit in Cheyenne, Wyoming for example) and many other cities have even less? Is it a financial thing, or just US officials being against public transit?

Seriously, nearly every public transit project in smaller cities have been put on hold. Remember when we were going to get high speed rail in Wisconsin? And then it gets cancelled. And at the same time, two lines on the Prague Metro get expanded/extended.

I'm surprised US officials aren't taking this into account.

Perhaps the following is misguided or childish but here goes anyway. Enlighten me.

What if: gov would test a new way of allocating tax dollars. Start giving money to the lowest denominator on the standard budget work sheet. I imagined a thought that the first allocation could start with the least expensive of all the line items on the sheet EG: nonprofit community organizations, city pound, women's shelters, rehab and detox centers, halfway housing, more addiction treatment centers, animal shelters and wildlife protection. Then after allocating funds to essential services, education, and up through infrastructure, continue to the top rung where I imagined the Military is. Theoretically, they would get what is left over. And hopefully that will encourage responsible use of military money. Perhaps pruning off some US bases overseas....

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by kitty61

Perhaps the following is misguided or childish but here goes anyway. Enlighten me.

What if: gov would test a new way of allocating tax dollars. Start giving money to the lowest denominator on the standard budget work sheet. I imagined a thought that the first allocation could start with the least expensive of all the line items on the sheet EG: nonprofit community organizations, city pound, women's shelters, rehab and detox centers, halfway housing, more addiction treatment centers, animal shelters and wildlife protection. Then after allocating funds to essential services, education, and up through infrastructure, continue to the top rung where I imagined the Military is. Theoretically, they would get what is left over. And hopefully that will encourage responsible use of military money. Perhaps pruning off some US bases overseas....

Are you talking about federal, state, or local?

Federal, that's social security, military, Medicare in that order. State varies. Generally welfare. In California that's about 40% of the state budget. Local it's education.

So, no social security, no welfare, no education. Obviously very different. For example, most babies in California have the prenatal and delivery costs covered by Medi-Cal, which would be gone. So infant mortality would skyrocket as the majority wouldn't have access to prenatal care or medicine during birth. No more education so as bad as we are we'd be worse. Sounds pretty awful to me.