Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (suburb, solutions)

[Minato ku]

Paris did dismantle it's streetcar network in the 1930s, decades before most cities.
It is true that Paris already had a large subway network.

Back in the early 1980s, France had only third small tram networks left.
Two lines in Lille, one line in Marseille and one line in St Etienne.
1950s and 1960s have seen the closure of the overwhelming majority of French street cars network.

All the other tram networks in France have been built since the end of the 1980s (mostly in the 2000s). Nantes and Grenoble were the first cities to reintroduce tram in 1985 and 1988.

[hunterseat]

In a nutshell: (skipping over 11 pages of replies) I think it's because the USA is so large and spread out. It's not cost effective to run public transportation from Podunk MS to BFEgypt, Kentucky.

Then when I was in Memphis, I'd see buses running all the time with very few passengers. Atlanta is another story.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Good summary, hunterseat. Given that most U.S. cities are low density, it is hard to see how new rail systems could be cost effective. So what we have are sparse bus routes.

Unless…. A city plans some degree of further urbanization. That is a big if.

[jetgraphics]

Why the U.S. has lousy public transit?
The politically incorrect reason is greed.
. . .
Before the government intruded, America had the most installed track miles of electric traction urban and interurban rail.
This was all PRIVATE SECTOR funded and operated for profit.
. . .
The competing forces used the government (and taxpayers) to subsidize automobiles, petroleum use, and fund paving roads, while increasing TAXES on electric traction rail -and- restricting their fares.

Under such conditions, it was no surprise that tax subsidized automobiles, buses (argh) and trucks were perceived as "cheaper" than private sector rail (which was going broke mighty fast).

Despite nay sayers, GM, et al, did conspire, from the 1920s onward, to obliterate electric traction rail, by any means.

So today's hegemony of automobiles / petroleum / pavement sucks 20 to 22% of the nation's wealth and the taxpayers suffer the most wasteful form of land transportation - and are told that the only remedy to clogged roads is (you guessed it!) MORE SPENDING ON HIGHWAYS AND ROADS!

Taken for a Ride (documentary)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JQWRAoL0vk
....
Ray Bradbury Would've Crisscrossed LA With Monorails - Obits - Curbed LA
LA's Worst Transit Decision

In 1963, Alweg proposed to the city of Los Angeles a monorail system that would be designed, built, operated and maintained by Alweg. Alweg promised to take all financial risk from the construction, and the system would be repaid through fares collected. The City Council rejected the proposal in favor of no transit at all. (thanks to Standard Oil)

....
The Streetcar Conspiracy
The StreetCar Conspiracy
....
The Great American Streetcar Scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines
We can thank General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum for their successful destruction of electric traction rail, and the imposition of our dependency on imported petroleum.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by hunterseat

In a nutshell: (skipping over 11 pages of replies) I think it's because the USA is so large and spread out. It's not cost effective to run public transportation from Podunk MS to BFEgypt, Kentucky.

Then when I was in Memphis, I'd see buses running all the time with very few passengers. Atlanta is another story.

Well, back in 1890, the USA was so huge and spread out, but that did not stop private rail from installing tracks and running trains... and with 1/4 of the population of today.

Peak heavy rail mileage: 254,000 miles (less than 160,000 miles today)
Streetcar track: 34,404 miles by 1907, in over 140 cities, with 60,000 cars in service.
Interurban track: 15,500 miles by 1917
(Total rail mileage was over 300,000 miles)

In contrast:
Interstate Highway System : 47,714 miles


RAIL IS
❏ safer
❏ durable (cheaper over the long run)
❏ tracks and rolling stock can be used for decades - some over 100 years
❏ scalable with population growth
❏ more energy efficient
❏ regenerative braking recovers energy
❏ less polluting (no detritus from eroding tires, oil spills, etc)
❏ frugal, uses fewer resources
❏ compact, less surface area

BUT
Government mismanaged tax payer funded rail is plagued by bureaucracy, politics, red tape, and cost overruns. (leave it to American government to foul up the most efficient form of land transportation!)

[Warszawa]

Originally Posted by nei

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

Yeah where my college is the town buses run 6am-6pm which is kinda stupid. There are student buses but the locals are ****ed when it comes to transportation. They have to etiher a) ask their friends for rides or b) spend ten dollars on a taxi each night. Dumb

[nei]

Originally Posted by Warszawa

Yeah where my college is the town buses run 6am-6pm which is kinda stupid. There are student buses but the locals are ****ed when it comes to transportation. They have to etiher a) ask their friends for rides or b) spend ten dollars on a taxi each night. Dumb

You're in Binghamton, right? I thought they'd have a few routes running later there. The bus routes by the state university here shut down at midnight; some keep running till 2:30 AM or so Friday and Saturday night.

[Warszawa]

Originally Posted by nei

Or walk. Or maybe bicycle. Most of the NYC bus ridership isn't as feeders for the subway, most subway riders walk to the station. Obviously this because the residential densities is high, but even Boston and maybe DC at least half walk to the station (I have trouble finding stats quickly). A system where many have to get a bus to transfer to the rail system is likely to be less convenient than one that doesn't.

It's not surprising Denver's isn't as useful as Bogota, residential densities are much higher there, so a denser, more frequent network of transit routes can be supported.

Bogota is actually kinda ****ty by Latin American standards. Best public transport in Colombia is undoubtedly in Medellin

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Warszawa

Bogota is actually kinda ****ty by Latin American standards. Best public transport in Colombia is undoubtedly in Medellin

You obviously know nothing about Colombia. The best public transit in Colombia is not in Medellin. Bogota has the most modern advanced transit system, not only in Colombia, but in the entire Western Hemisphere. So if Bogota is “kinda ****ty” then the entire US with our 100 year old crumbling infrastructure must be a worse ****hole.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRGoketbIZE

[lukas1973]

Originally Posted by nei

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.

I live in Düsseldorf. Yes you can reach every corner in the city by transit and in most cases it's faster than by car. The trams run maybe on half the stretches on their own lanes. But short delays are still very common, mostly caused by delivery vans that can't find a parking lot and stood on the tracks. The tram driver rings then, the driver of the van drives then hopefully instantly away. There are also quite offen accidents on the routes. But in most cases the control point can redirect the trams. There are several parallel routes through the city center. Tram lines run every 10 minutes. Most stops in the city center are served by more than one line, so the tact is denser.







Transit in Düsseldorf:
-25 railway stations within the city limits, served by 6 S-Bahn lines (commuter train), run every 20 minutes.
-99 Stadtbahn (kind of subway) stops, served by 7 lines, run every 10 minutes. It runs underground in the city center, on some stretches it uses the same tracks as the trams.
-180 tram stops, served by 11 tram lines, run every 10 minutes.
-93 bus lines, most of them run every 10 minutes, a few every 20 minutes. I can't find figures for the number of bus stops.
Some of the Stadtbahn and tram stops are located in adjacent cities.
Pop of Düsseldorf about 605,000, area 217km² (84sq miles)

The trams are the most convenient modes of transit. You don't need to go into underground stations. And the trams often stop directly in front of all kinds of stores. In the morning and after school (between 1:30pm and 3pm) busses and trams can get extremely crowded.

The longest tram line is the 701, it runs now for 107 years.
Nice video of the 701, Düsseldorf is a very green city


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU29McyCliM