Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (Portland, ridership)

[nei]

Originally Posted by Natnasci

Just scanning the list of North American trains, it seems most are airport trains and not full transit type systems.

Except for Vancouver, Honolulu is building a similar system. Regardless, there are plenty of systems outside of North America on the list since it's not like it can't be done.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker

One possible exception…. The Las Vegas monorail.

https:http://www.inverse.com/article/9323-...hyperloop-hype

Something mentioned on other CD threads is a monorail extended to downtown Vegas.

I've been on the Vegas monorail. It reminded me very much of the Seattle monorail, which I've also been on.
It's more of a tourist people mover, than real transit IMO.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by nei

Except for Vancouver, Honolulu is building a similar system. Regardless, there are plenty of systems outside of North America on the list since it's not like it can't be done.

I agree since I've been living with an automated system here in Vancouver. You don't hear people here worried about the lack of drivers. They just complain like everyone else complains about breakdowns, fares and the fact the train doesn't have a stop right outside their door.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Originally Posted by Natnasci

I've been on the Vegas monorail. It reminded me very much of the Seattle monorail, which I've also been on.
It's more of a tourist people mover, than real transit IMO.

Good point! And yes, the Seattle monorail is also a tourist thing.

I think these monorails can be listed as show case systems, and thus a niche application.

[Natnasci]

Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker

Good point! And yes, the Seattle monorail is also a tourist thing.

I think these monorails can be listed as show case systems, and thus a niche application.

Nevertheless, I would advocate a mass transit systems based on the bus, rather than rail.

Not me. In certain situations buses work better, but overall taking elevated or underground rail, is faster.
If I were to take a bus from the our airport right to the last stop downtown at Waterfront it would take over an hour....longer in rush hour traffic. The Canada Line, 26 minutes...always.

Also here, the Skytrain has spurted growth. As soon as you leave the downtown core, you see hi-rises and business surrounding stations. People want to live near easy transit.

Where buses come in, is picking up and dropping off passengers at the Skytrain stations. People mix the two for a quicker trip.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Originally Posted by Natnasci

Also here, the Skytrain has spurted growth. As soon as you leave the downtown core, you see hi-rises and business surrounding stations. People want to live near easy transit.

Where buses come in, is picking up and dropping off passengers at the Skytrain stations. People mix the two for a quicker trip.

Perhaps rail would make sense if you think in terms of Transit Orientated Development (TOD)…and keeping it out of congestion at street level.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Discussion of Transit Orientated Development (TOD).

Transit Oriented Development

Interesting idea, urban areas, old and new, being connected up like beads on a necklace.

[Warszawa]

Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker

I recall a comment i once came across-"We basically hate buses".


Other than our largest/densest/most urban cities, I think there are three basic options:


1. The bus. This is the practical option for U.S. cities. I would advocate a decent bus system.


2. Rail as a showcase. For example, the monorail in Seattle.


3. Rail as a planning fad. The basic notion seems to be "if you build it they will come".


I have to say that I am unenthusiastic about option 1, but it is the workable one. As for option 2, this isn't very practical, but I can imagine a single route in a city, and relying on buses for every other route. As for option 3, I think that it is a fad that will turn into an expensive white elephant-and I can imagine tax payers becoming fed up.

Buses are horrible since they're slow, inconsistent (since they get stuck in traffic) and also at night it's dangerous to wait for them, whereas in the Metro you have protection. Besides, many places don't even do buses right, in my college town buses don't even run after 6pm or on weekends, which is ****ing stupid but I guess no one gives a **** about public transportation in the US. Oh well at least you get mad exercise walking everywhere

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by bus man

Cheyenne has a population of about 62,000 and a density of about 3,000 per square mile. The city's transit system has 6 routes, all of which are timed to connect at a downtown hub on the hour. The buses run every hour, with the first block of trips starting at 6:00 a.m. (weekdays) or 10:00 a.m. (Saturdays), and the last block of trips starting at 6:00 p.m. (weekdays) or 4:00 p.m. (Saturdays).

IMO, Cheyenne's transit system offers an appropriate level of service for a city of its size and population density.

I disagree that’s an appropriate level of service for any size city, though it is typical of 99% of small US transit systems. Hourly, M - F, 6AM - 6PM service shouldn’t even qualify as “public transit”. That type of service, doesn’t serve the public. It serves exactly two groups of unemployed people. 1. full time students (excluding night classes) and 2. retired senior citizens (who use it for shopping and going to medical appointments). It excludes all full time employed people, which is the majority of the public. Because the only possible work shift it covers, would be people who work 8AM - 5PM, M - F, and those people would never consider riding it because it would be too inconvenient. If they had to work even one hour late, they would have missed the last bus.

So that is not even an example of bad public transit service. It’s an example of non-public transit service. It doesn’t even serve the people who need it most. That being low-income minimum wage workers who have to work nights and weekends.

Before 1950, when the US did not have bad public transit service, all transit systems, even in small towns ran a standard schedule of 6AM to midnight, 7AM - midnight Sundays. That was considered the minimum operating hours to serve the public.

[nei]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

I disagree that’s an appropriate level of service for any size city, though it is typical of 99% of small US transit systems. Hourly, M - F, 6AM - 6PM service shouldn’t even qualify as “public transit”. That type of service, doesn’t serve the public. It serves exactly two groups of unemployed people. 1. full time students (excluding night classes) and 2. retired senior citizens (who use it for shopping and going to medical appointments). It excludes all full time employed people, which is the majority of the public. Because the only possible work shift it covers, would be people who work 8AM - 5PM, M - F, and those people would never consider riding it because it would be too inconvenient. If they had to work even one hour late, they would have missed the last bus.

I'm puzzled why they start the buses running so early. Wouldn't 7 AM to 7 PM be a more practical time for everyone? Or maybe even 7:30 to 7:30 PM? The small town to the north of me has a bus system with similar hours