Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (downtown, compared)

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Because General Motors embarked on a policy of buying up mass private transportation, then running it into the ground, in an attempt to force Americans to buy cars, instead of using mass transit.

It's not a conspiracy theory....it's a documentary film. Watch it and learn.

The historical record cited, usually referred to as the "National City Lines Case" is true, but both sides of the ongoing controversy over public transportation vs. private vehicles tend to "embellish" the facts to prove their points:

Here are a couple of links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera...car_conspiracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCC_streetcar


It needs to be understood that, once the expensive (and immovable) wires and tracks were in place, city transit systems became a political hostage and whipping boy. Despite inflation at the close of World War I, local politicians knew it was to their advantage to hold fares down. With the coming of another spasm of inflation at the close of World War II, the private transit operators saw no answer but to get out, so many operations were sold to National City Lines -- the operating losses probably were used to offset profits from other parts of the operation, most likely by passing them on to the parent companies.

While the revelations generated a fair amount of attention at the time (and likely even more since its revival via the present polarization), nobody went to jail. It's also worth recognizing that since few industry suppliers saw much of a future in urban transit, standardized equipment such as the PCC streetcar and the adaptation of standard GMC Coach bodies for electric operation (trolley buses or "trackless trolleys") became the rule. There was simply no incentive to innovate.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by 2nd trick op

... our freight rail network, reduced to about half its former mileage due to the development of trucking for pickup, delivery, perishable commodities and short hauls, remains the finest in the world....

I would aver that the bigger problem in American transportation is that so much of our freight moves via over-the-road trucking, rather than rail. If more goods were shipped via rail, we'd have fewer 18-wheelers on the highways, and therefore smoother traffic flow, less congestion, less road-wear (and less need for incessant highway refurbishment).

Originally Posted by lukas1973

The population density in Sweden is lower than in the U.S. but the Cities in Sweden have a reliable public transportation system.
The reason why European cities normally have a reliable public transportation system is, that they are build much more compact.

Exactly! Europeans tend to reside in compact villages, even if they're not in urban centers. Americans tend to reside on half-acre or 5-acre and 10-acre lots, sprawling to infinity, even if they're nominally attached to a major metro area. It's not just that American population-density is lower than in Europe; American population is distributed more homogeneously.

Taking the Swedish example, travel 50 km west of Stockholm, and it's essentially open forest. A friend of mine lives in Balsta (sp?), quite some distance from Stockholm-proper. But it's a compact town attached to Stockholm via public transportation. Such a thing simply doesn't happen in the US.

[JR_C]

The US had a good mass-transportation system. But, Americans fell in love with their cars. So, transit systems withered, were abandoned, or were removed completely. Our newer cities were built around the car, and our older cities were retrofitted to better accommodate the car. (this is why our cities are less dense than our European counterparts) Now, outside of a few isolated locations, Americans don't have a viable alternative to the car. The automotive "honeymoon" is over, but we're still married to the car.

[Redraven]

We once lived where "mass transit" (city bus service) was available.
It was useless.
Sure, DW could have used it to go to work, IF she was Willing to leave the house 1 1/2 hours before her shift start time, and get home 1 1/2 to 2 hours after her shift ended.
The 15 minute drive to the hospital was much easier, and only slightly more expensive.
Why was the bus schedule so terrible?
Lack of money, pure and simple. The fares were about as high as they could make them and still have riders. The taxpayers were tired of subsidizing a system they could not use.
Now, we live about 5 miles outside the city limits. There are no "Park And Ride" lots available, and if there were, the bus schedules would not allow for riding the bus.
There is no passenger rail service available. If there were, it would have to be subsidized by the State or Federal government, because it could not pay its own way.
Greyhound no longer serves our city. The routes became uneconomical, so greyhound went away, and the bus station became a pub.
Air service is not all that great, either, the routes are not economical, so the Feds pay for "Essential Air Service" to keep flights going.
It is really very simple: If "Mass Transit" can not support itself, it can not exist! If it can not have scheduled runs that meet the needs of the riders, it can not support itself.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by JR_C

The US had a good mass-transportation system. But, Americans fell in love with their cars. So, transit systems withered, were abandoned, or were removed completely. Our newer cities were built around the car, and our older cities were retrofitted to better accommodate the car. (this is why our cities are less dense than our European counterparts) Now, outside of a few isolated locations, Americans don't have a viable alternative to the car. The automotive "honeymoon" is over, but we're still married to the car.

Substitute "private transportation" for "car" and interpret "newer cities" as any city built since 1787. A greater proportion of Americans than Europeans have owned private transportation for all of American history.


Washington, DC, for instance, was designed specifically with the private ownership of transportation in mind (and designed to slow it down). I don't think even the oldest US cities were ever designed with the idea that all streets should not be able to handle substantial two-way privately owned transportation.


And remember that until the 1940s, most Americans were rural or small-town and private transportation was the necessary rule, not the exception. Private transportation has always been the general preference in the US.

[Caleb Longstreet]

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.

Because for the most part, we are/were/continue to be the auto capital of the world. Most people can afford them, if not 2 or 3....gas is relatively cheap compared to the world and we are very spread out....to be fair to the US, it's more of a necessity than in a highly dense area like the Czech Republic and Europe in general.


I just wish we could/would develop high-speed rail....of course the airlines might have a thing or two to say about that....we would also have to spend about a trillion to do it in order to cover the "NFL cities" from coast to coast.....and then there's the upkeep.....


Cars can be had for 2-5K that are considered "reliable transportation"....and based on that, it's fairly easy to get anyone into one.....ergo, the massive traffic jams in the morning, noon, and at night....

[Tim Randal Walker]

As has been pointed out in other City Data threads, few U.S. cities were built compact/urban. The handful of exceptions are listed again and again in other threads.

Other than the bus, does mass transit make sense with such low population densities?

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

I would aver that the bigger problem in American transportation is that so much of our freight moves via over-the-road trucking, rather than rail. If more goods were shipped via rail, we'd have fewer 18-wheelers on the highways, and therefore smoother traffic flow, less congestion, less road-wear (and less need for incessant highway refurbishment).

Below is a link to a huge site which deals with exactly how people in Greater New York got a lot of their food, fuel, supplies and consumer goods in the days before Interstate highways:

Index of Offline Terminal, Industrial, Freight & Military Railroads of Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, Bronx & Manhattan

The pictures alone are fascinating; freight cars were delivered to yards along the west bank of the Hudson and moved on special barges known as "car floats" to piers and small yards, not only in Manhattan, but in Brooklyn and the Bronx as well.

But an operation this cumbersome could not be moved once set up -- making it a target not only for politicians and grafters, but for corrupt labor unions. Major films like On The Waterfront and Slaughter on Tenth Avenue (the latter based on an actual case) and writers like the late Budd Schulberg documented these abuses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budd_Schulberg

It's very difficult for anyone under the age of, roughly 55, to visualize how large and adaptable this system once was, but the inefficiencies and vulnerabilities eventually doomed it, and a new system, based on Interstate highways and warehouses / distribution centers a hundred miles or so inland took its place; It won't, and can't be revived.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

I would aver that the bigger problem in American transportation is that so much of our freight moves via over-the-road trucking, rather than rail. If more goods were shipped via rail, we'd have fewer 18-wheelers on the highways, and therefore smoother traffic flow, less congestion, less road-wear (and less need for incessant highway refurbishment).




Exactly! Europeans tend to reside in compact villages, even if they're not in urban centers. Americans tend to reside on half-acre or 5-acre and 10-acre lots, sprawling to infinity, even if they're nominally attached to a major metro area. It's not just that American population-density is lower than in Europe; American population is distributed more homogeneously.

Taking the Swedish example, travel 50 km west of Stockholm, and it's essentially open forest. A friend of mine lives in Balsta (sp?), quite some distance from Stockholm-proper. But it's a compact town attached to Stockholm via public transportation. Such a thing simply doesn't happen in the US.

Hyperbole much?

50 km = 31 mi. Most US cities the size of Stockholm (a compact "village" of 897,000 people) have transportation that far out into the suburbs. Heck, Denver, at about 2/3 that size, does.

[War Beagle]

Most Americans don't want to ride around in a metal tube with the mentally ill and criminals that utilize public transit here.