Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (versus, suburban)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by lukas1973

Compact village means for example a lonely village with a pop of about 1,000 residents. It's normally surrounded by fields and forests. Such a village is much more compact than American suburbs or small towns. So maybe 2 or 3 bus stops on the main road in this village are sufficient, so every one in the village can reach a bus stop easily by foot. The bus takes them to the next bigger city, maybe 5 miles away. That works even in very rural areas. If the settlements in the U.S. wouldn't be so spread out, it wouldn't be a problem to install an efficient public transportation system.

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: http://www.rtd-denver.com/ Do look at "services".

[Diane de Poitiers]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

But then, the transit authority built a "light rail" showpiece, and the buses, instead of going from my neighborhood to where I worked downtown, then went from my neighborhood to the light rail station closest to my neighborhood. And the light rail station downtown didn't quite go where I worked like the old bus did. So there was another bus from the light rail station downtown to my place of work.

What was once a single bus from my home to my work, became a bus from my home to one light rail stop, then the light rail to another light rail stop, then a bus to my work.

Transition time lags meant my transit time nearly doubled.
[/b]

Same thing happened here in Phoenix when we started getting our light rail system - one end of a bus route I used was shortened because of this, and what used to be a "one bus" trip was now a bus, light rail, and a neighborhood circulator bus just to get to the same area.

[chirack]

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.

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).

[vision33r]

Government for the big companies in which the big auto lobbied hard to dissuade the government from building a more efficient mass transportation infrastructure.

So keep voting for candidates that have pockets lined by big business.

[chirack]

Originally Posted by vision33r

Government for the big companies in which the big auto lobbied hard to dissuade the government from building a more efficient mass transportation infrastructure.

So keep voting for candidates that have pockets lined by big business.

Not really. If anything transit has expanded in cities like Chicago, it just shrank in the burbs.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by vision33r

Government for the big companies in which the big auto lobbied hard to dissuade the government from building a more efficient mass transportation infrastructure.

So keep voting for candidates that have pockets lined by big business.

I've provided concrete facts regarding one instance (National City Lines) which is real, but has been distorted by both sides of the controversy.

Do you have specific facts, or do you just want to echo the usual "pop wisdom"?

[Tim Randal Walker]

I noticed that the rail link between downtown Seattle and SeaTac airport…is slower than the old bus was.

[ackmondual]

In WWII, Europe got their infrastructures bombed. I hear it's easier to just start anew rather then modifying what's already in place like we have now.

[Led Zeppelin]

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.

It's a no brainer. Public transportation in America is funded by CITIES. They can't make PT viable most of the time, due to the lack of customers. Everybody drives their own car in America. Metro Subways are an exception because people who commute to the city to work from the suburbs are legion, and they can supply the necessary revenue base. They don't want the nightmare of parking, so they take the train.

European countries are small. The entire continent of Europe is less than half the size of the CONUS and with half the population. PT makes sense in Europe. American affluence is/was much greater, and every family had at least one car.

[bale002]

Originally Posted by ackmondual

In WWII, Europe got their infrastructures bombed. I hear it's easier to just start anew rather then modifying what's already in place like we have now.

Interesting to note, about a hundred years ago many people in NYC thought the world was coming to an end because of all the horses clogging and their manure piling up on the streets.

Then came the automobile.

Fast forward a hundred years later, many people think the world is coming to an end because of gasoline-power car traffic and pollution.

I have the sensation that smart roads and driverless alternative-power cars will solve, at least to a significant extent, the transportation infrastructure problem, so maybe the current lack of investment in these "middling" technologies will prove to be the right thing.