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.
SF and Seattle have good public transportation. And they are less populated than Prague.
Old European cities have very narrow medieval streets, and, unlike US, EU countries care about old buildings and overall "old world" appearance - this is a source of income. So, well-designed public transportation is critically important for the cultural preservation of a living, vibrant cities like Prague.
I say it like it is, I don't sugar coat things. America and many Americans just don't care about this subject. There is a certain segment of Americans, that do believe in efficient transit in big Metro's. I'm one of them. We are in the minority though.
America is a very brainwashed country, with a really bad mix of populations. Populations that have no business all being in the same country. It is why nothing is functioning, including the lack of proper transit amongst other facets of a productive society. The majority just doesn't care about much of anything.
They want to drive their own cars, even where its no longer practical for everything in life anymore. Houston and Phoenix and Florida Metro's come to mind. Especially Florida's metro's are a complete disgrace on this subject. Massive sprawl and huge populations, yet completely inept on the importance of options to get around. Only a few large areas have dealth with the problem. Places like Denver and Portland come to mind and a few more, but still the majority of the USA just doesn't seem to care. Drive drive and more driving is how they look at life in the USA. Our automakers and politicians drummed this thinking pattern into this country decades ago. Americans just followed along. I think complete laziness on the part of many Americans is also part of it. I mean in a big city like Houston and Orlando and Tampa in this day and age. One would think they would have seen, how serious traffic problems could get and dealth with this by the 1980's. Yet not much of anything was done, and look at these places now. Its just about gridlock half the time.
It is not just the amount of out of control traffic, that this lack of transit has caused in this country. It has put many people in debt they should not have. Believe it or not many people in this country have no business owning a car. They simply cannot afford one and all the expense that comes with ownership. Yet society has made a living arrangement in this country, that other than a few areas a car is a necessity. It is not a luxury it is a necessity. Right there speaks volumes on the intelligence and thinking pattern, of a society in such a populated country. A country with numerous huge Metro's with barely a bus system.
It definitely is an ignorance and arrogance factor, in this country on this subject. Both politicians and many Americans are responsible, for this lack of dealing with this problem.
In the US, we use school buses for children in areas where public transit is not available and school buses when the children are too young for public transit. Theses take children to school. There may be some transit present in some burbs and kids ride bikes but are otherwise dependent on adults for transportation until 16(the typical age when kids can get an licence--I had an full licence at 16, but these days states are issuing restricted licences that limit driving at night and the number of teenagers(who are not relatives) that can be in the car.). Car ownership isn't typical at 16(in the city it is more like 20 when someone gets their first car)but parents sometimes hand down an car.
For elderly there are para transit services for the sick that can be scheduled(a tax payer supported van to pick you up). And elderly drive until they can't drive any more. As you age driver licences checks become more frequent so at some point your health wont allow you to drive, but you could be driving until 70,80 even 90 years old. When elderly and low income they may get assistance from homemakers(and if high income they might hire one). Homemakers if desired can shop for the person or if they can drive/have a car they can do that for you. Family also help transport elderly relatives as well as run errands. And there sometimes is an community service that handles transporting elderly in some burbs. Church members who can still drive will drop by and some churches have buses or transportation for members. Also Church members may volunteer to carry someone to services. Taxi service are also available(but can get expensive).
In areas with public transit people over 65 often pay a discounted rate(as well as students on the way to school).
Thank you for the good explanation. For me it's a common sight to see so many elderly people constantly uses buses and trams for everything, that makes it difficult to understand how it could works without an extensive bus and tram system.
It's an good idea to make frequent driver licence checks. We don't do this in Germany.
The compact village thing was sarcasm and not addressed to you. I'm guessing English isn't your first language. I'll try to tone it down.
I'm interested in hearing what your experience in the US is. Most large cities have decent transit systems that do service the suburbs. Here is the map of the transit system for my city: RTD
You can even get to Eldora Ski area on the bus. We also have commuter rail in some areas, and now BRT (bus rapid transit) in the northwest area, connecting Boulder to Denver, plus regular service from Boulder to Denver as well. Here's the full website for the transit district: RTD Do look at "services".
I am from Germany so I am struggling with English.
I have some experiences with the bus service in a medium sized town in Massaschusetts. It was horrible. And I really can understand that no one with a car want to use the buses there. The people that uses the buses were extremely scary The main reason for the existence of this sparse bus system was surely to gave people without a car the possibility to get to some shopping destinations. It's more like an emergency system.
Considering the large area that the RTD has to serve, I think it's quite good. And I am not sure whether it makes sense to make those transit systems even more dense. I will do a comparison to the Rheinbahn, the public transport provider for Düsseldorf and some adjacent cities. But I think those comparisons doesn't make much sense. Because of the differences in population density.
The figures for Düsseldorf don't include commuter trains or express trains. And also not the traffic that is done by adjacent transit authorities that serve the Düsseldorf area.
A main difference is probably that there are still residential areas in Denver where people have to walk more than 1 mile to the next bus stop. In Düsseldorf it's probably impossible to find a residential area where people have to walk more than 1/4 mile to the next bus stop. The majority in Denver lives in detached houses on large plots. That makes it nearly impossible to densify the bus network even more. And compared to many other places in Europe, the transit network in Denver seems quite dense.
It's somewhat pity that public transportation in the U.S. isn't more like the one in Europe. But I think it's absurd to expect and demand that it's similar. It would be foolish to install a similar public transportation system in the U.S. It makes probably more sense for the U.S. to subsidize car ownership for low income people instead of building an extensive public transportation network.
Most places in Europe can't live without an extensive public transportation network, because the whole transportation system would collapse. The road network would never be able to cope with the traffic if all people would uses their cars. It's already a nightmare to commute between Düsseldorf and Cologne with the car. It's so much faster and more relaxing to use the train.
I am from Germany so I am struggling with English.
I have some experiences with the bus service in a medium sized town in Massaschusetts. It was horrible. And I really can understand that no one with a car want to use the buses there. The people that uses the buses were extremely scary The main reason for the existence of this sparse bus system was surely to gave people without a car the possibility to get to some shopping destinations. It's more like an emergency system.
Considering the large area that the RTD has to serve, I think it's quite good. And I am not sure whether it makes sense to make those transit systems even more dense. I will do a comparison to the Rheinbahn, the public transport provider for Düsseldorf and some adjacent cities. But I think those comparisons doesn't make much sense. Because of the differences in population density.
The figures for Düsseldorf don't include commuter trains or express trains. And also not the traffic that is done by adjacent transit authorities that serve the Düsseldorf area.
A main difference is probably that there are still residential areas in Denver where people have to walk more than 1 mile to the next bus stop. In Düsseldorf it's probably impossible to find a residential area where people have to walk more than 1/4 mile to the next bus stop. The majority in Denver lives in detached houses on large plots. That makes it nearly impossible to densify the bus network even more. And compared to many other places in Europe, the transit network in Denver seems quite dense.
It's somewhat pity that public transportation in the U.S. isn't more like the one in Europe. But I think it's absurd to expect and demand that it's similar. It would be foolish to install a similar public transportation system in the U.S. It makes probably more sense for the U.S. to subsidize car ownership for low income people instead of building an extensive public transportation network.
Most places in Europe can't live without an extensive public transportation network, because the whole transportation system would collapse. The road network would never be able to cope with the traffic if all people would uses their cars. It's already a nightmare to commute between Düsseldorf and Cologne with the car. It's so much faster and more relaxing to use the train.
It is the policy of the RTD that bus stops are no more than 1/4 mi apart, as in Dusselfdorf, excluding express services. There are probably a few places where people live a bit farther, but the metro area is pretty dense until you get into the foothills (west of Golden/Boulder). The lots in Denver are small, for the US. Do a search, you'll see we've talked about this before. My home is just about 1/4 mi. from the closest stop. My younger daughter took the bus home from middle school every day as we lived too close for a bus, but kind of far to walk (1.5 mi uphill home). The older one was in a carpool; they are the devil's work.
Most American cities are built for cars. Especially when mass transit in most cities doesn't cover much.
Yes, the majority of these essentially cater to private transportation. The handful of exceptions have been listed again and again in other threads, regarding the (pitifully few) cities that are dense/urban.
In the USA, the life style that is overwhelmingly emphasized is suburban.
Good luck trying to build mass transit in a country that doesn't value city living.
And basically regards public transportation as charity for the poor.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 02-06-2016 at 12:09 PM..
Abysmal planning. Agencies were too weak. In the 19th century, railroads were allowed to cross other railroads at grade. What were they smoking? There was no prevention of bus replacement. In NY they hired Robert Moses to plan! In most cities transit agencies didn't arise until most rail lines were already lost. Bus lines are bad enough under ideal conditions. But transit agencies made it even worse by using rundown buses, hiring surly drivers and using circuitous routes. This ensured that almost no registered voters rode, so no pressure was exerted to improve the system. Of course measures such as exclusive bus lanes and traffic signal priority were totally ignored.
And this doesn't even consider cheap gas taxes and hiway subsidies.
Last edited by pvande55; 02-06-2016 at 07:33 PM..
Reason: Add lines
Yes, the majority of these essentially cater to private transportation. The handful of exceptions have been listed again and again in other threads, regarding the (pitifully few) cities that are dense/urban.
In the USA, the life style that is overwhelmingly emphasized is suburban.
Good luck trying to build mass transit in a country that doesn't value city living.
And basically regards public transportation as charity for the poor.
Public transportation has been a political issue ever since urbanization drew large numbers of people into the cities; any mass movement has side effects. The invention and, more-importantly, the adaptation of the automobile to mass markets was one of the most significant societal factors of our time, probably second only to the emancipation of women. The further development of alternative fuels serves as further proof that the autonomy offered by the private vehicle is not going to be "legislated out of fashion".
But that trend doesn't completely negate the point that other factors, most notably the aging of the population and the finite amount of land suitable for development, will condition an automobile-oriented society to adapt, but only up to the point where natural market conditions strike a balance. It's a natural outcome of the forces of human interaction, and the only "accomplishments" of the politicians and planners will be delays and higher costs.
Although, The CTA and Metra do seem to run really well.
I live in Chicago and can state while the CTA is no where near perfect, we lived for some time without a car (only bought one as a requirement for a job). We rarely use it outside of work and many of friends do not have cars.
Abysmal planning. Agencies were too weak. In the 19th century, railroads were allowed to cross other railroads at grade. What were they smoking? There was no prevention of bus replacement. In NY they hired Robert Moses to plan! In most cities transit agencies didn't arise until most rail lines were already lost. Bus lines are bad enough under ideal conditions. But transit agencies made it even worse by using rundown buses, hiring surly drivers and using circuitous routes. This ensured that almost no registered voters rode, so no pressure was exerted to improve the system. Of course measures such as exclusive bus lanes and traffic signal priority were totally ignored.
And this doesn't even consider cheap gas taxes and hiway subsidies.
Not really. The rise of the automobile has to do with the fall of transit. Running rail at grade is cheaper than other options. For the CTA buses were cheaper and better suited to the passenger load in most cases. Trolleys require wire and rail, both of which would fall under the CTA's budget. Buses do not. Buses are also more maneuverable(a bus can dodge an stalled bus or an car accident...a trolley can not) and easier to reroute(no need for rails). In fact there are some streets in Chicago today that have bus service, that never had trolley service. Trolleys are great when you have larger crowds.
Registered voters do ride transit but many more people drive. The car's ability to go non stop door to door trumps public transit in many cases. Now there are some specific cases where transit can be an better option but it is more the exception to the rule.
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.
The main reason for the existence of this sparse bus system was surely to gave people without a car the possibility to get to some shopping destinations. It's more like an emergency system. 
