Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (development, class)

[moionfire]

Originally Posted by lukas1973

What I don't understand, when people get older and they are too old to drive a car. How they get to the next grocery store or the doctor in the U.S.? Elderly people in Germany would take their rollator, walk to the nearest bus stop. Get onto the bus, 2 or 3 bus stops later they step out, walk to the doctor, after that they walk to the grocery store, buy some food stuff, met accidentally some friends, talk a lot about anything and everything. Walk back to the bus stop and take the bus home. How should that work without a dense bus network Drive elderly people in the U.S. until they die? Or will they get help from some church members or neighbors for example? That would be very nice, but they would always be dependent on other people. Especially for elderly people but also for kids in Germany, the public transportation system is vital.

This is why US transit is so dangerous. Since everyone is forced to drive, people who shouldn't are on the streets.

[pvande55]

Originally Posted by chirack

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.

You are looking at Chicago, a transit wonderland compared to most of the US. With the advent of the automobile, city planners focused on accommodation. Transit was mostly ignored for decades. If you look at the transit maps of many cities the buses don't go where you want, everyone must transfer downtown, and the quality of buses is low. Some don even have bus, much less rail, to the airport.

Indeed, this report shows the problem.http://www.governing.com/topics/tran...or-cities.html
When a large percentage of riders are in poverty, transit will have low priority.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by pvande55

You are looking at Chicago, a transit wonderland compared to most of the US. With the advent of the automobile, city planners focused on accommodation. Transit was mostly ignored for decades. If you look at the transit maps of many cities the buses don't go where you want, everyone must transfer downtown, and the quality of buses is low. Some don even have bus, much less rail, to the airport.
.

As I mentioned before, it's not automobiles per se, but private transportation in particular. US cities were planned around the concept of private transportation for the average person by the late 1700s. Washington DC, in particular, planned for it. Private transportation for the masses was an American aspiration from the beginning.

The plans of most older European cities were laid down long before it was a common social expectation that the average person would own so much as a horse or donkey. Private transportation for the masses was still a novel idea when the German "people's car" (Volksvagen) was conceived.

[JR_C]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

As I mentioned before, it's not automobiles per se, but private transportation in particular. US cities were planned around the concept of private transportation for the average person by the late 1700s. Washington DC, in particular, planned for it. Private transportation for the masses was an American aspiration from the beginning.

The plans of most older European cities were laid down long before it was a common social expectation that the average person would own so much as a horse or donkey. Private transportation for the masses was still a novel idea when the German "people's car" (Volksvagen) was conceived.

Why do you say our oldest cities were designed specifically for private transportation? At the time, a street that could carry a horse and carriage could also carry a coach with multiple passengers. Yes, our cities' streets were made wider than the streets found in medieval European cities, because it was understood that they would be used by more than just pedestrians, but that doesn't seem relevant to a discussion about the quality of public transportation.

Cities didn't really start to sprawl until after WWII. Mass transit remained viable in most cities until new buildings started to be pushed apart--reducing density--by driveways and parking lots, minimum set-backs, multi-lane highways, etc.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

As I mentioned before, it's not automobiles per se, but private transportation in particular. US cities were planned around the concept of private transportation for the average person by the late 1700s. Washington DC, in particular, planned for it. Private transportation for the masses was an American aspiration from the beginning.

The plans of most older European cities were laid down long before it was a common social expectation that the average person would own so much as a horse or donkey. Private transportation for the masses was still a novel idea when the German "people's car" (Volksvagen) was conceived.

DC was planned to be a government center, no more. I don't think L'Enfant in his wildest dreams ever thought it would become the megalopolis it is today. I'm saying, not a valid example.

When this country was founded, and until about 1920, most people lived on farms. Farm people, of necessity, owned horses/donkeys and carriages. https://www.census.gov/population/ce...ta/table-4.pdf

[chirack]

Originally Posted by JR_C

Why do you say our oldest cities were designed specifically for private transportation? At the time, a street that could carry a horse and carriage could also carry a coach with multiple passengers. Yes, our cities' streets were made wider than the streets found in medieval European cities, because it was understood that they would be used by more than just pedestrians, but that doesn't seem relevant to a discussion about the quality of public transportation.

Cities didn't really start to sprawl until after WWII. Mass transit remained viable in most cities until new buildings started to be pushed apart--reducing density--by driveways and parking lots, minimum set-backs, multi-lane highways, etc.

A bit more complicated than that. Public transit is an 19th century invention. Cities built before this time period were not built with it in mind. Before the 19th Century private transport via foot and private ownership of animals is all that is available and cities were limited to being the size of an area an average person could walk in an hour. Shop owners often lived in their shops avoiding an commute. Animal ownership is problematic for most city inhabitants but not for farmers.

What happened in the 19th Century is that some inventive people began running regular routes using horse and coach and the coach itself grew and evolved into the Omnibus(an horse drawn "bus"). It is the regular routes that make public transit different from the preexisting taxi services offered.

Latter people found that if you put the couch on rails the animal wouldn't grow so tired. This Evolves into cable car as the horse got replaced by cables which allow more people and longer runs and finally by electric traction. The Omnibus remains in service where there isn't enough population or where rails haven't been installed yet. In the early 20th century the Omnibus gets replaced by the motor bus.

Cities Sprawl. For the first time in history city inhabitants no longer needed to live within walking distance of work. Factory management can consider living in the new street car burbs. Straight wide streets accommodate public transit via rails much easier. Grids allow people to walk between street car routes much easier.

The automobile being inherently faster allows people to live even further away from where they work and sprawl increases. Any form of transit that is faster will generate sprawl.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

DC was planned to be a government center, no more. I don't think L'Enfant in his wildest dreams ever thought it would become the megalopolis it is today. I'm saying, not a valid example.

When this country was founded, and until about 1920, most people lived on farms. Farm people, of necessity, owned horses/donkeys and carriages. https://www.census.gov/population/ce...ta/table-4.pdf

And the rural folk moved to town already believing in the private transportation they'd had at home.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

DC was planned to be a government center, no more. I don't think L'Enfant in his wildest dreams ever thought it would become the megalopolis it is today. I'm saying, not a valid example.

DC was designed with the expectation that heavy traffic would be a major consideration. The street pattern is explicitly designed to slow down vehicular traffic.

When this country was founded, and until about 1920, most people lived on farms. Farm people, of necessity, owned horses/donkeys and carriages. https://www.census.gov/population/ce...ta/table-4.pdf

And took their expectation of private transportation with them into the cities.

[Katarina Witt]

You seem to be moving the goalposts.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

You seem to be moving the goalposts.

I said:

As I mentioned before, it's not automobiles per se, but private transportation in particular. US cities were planned around the concept of private transportation for the average person by the late 1700s. Washington DC, in particular, planned for it. Private transportation for the masses was an American aspiration from the beginning.