Why does the United States have such bad public transportation? (metro, largest)

[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.

[MSchemist80]

Europe is much more densely populated with large cities closer together. The US is far more spread out. Aside from the largest cities, having extensive public transit makes little sense. Also anything run by the govt is likely to be over-priced, inefficient, and unreliable. Especially in Illinois.

[Beardown91737]

A metro is different than trans-state and interstate high speed rail. Chicago already has its metro, expanded it even within the last couple decades, but has closed earlier obsolete portions as well.

[5ForksSC]

Our culture has a love affair with the automobile.

[MrGompers]

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.

The short answer is the American public views public transportation as being for poor people, especially buses. Although I do think train/subway transport is viewed slightly higher in the public's view than buses.

Low gas prices play a role in the USA too.

[2nd trick op]

Europe also has very few petroleum deposits, fewer suburbs, and a class-consciousness which has, until recently, viewed the private automobile as a luxury intended only for the wealthy. Hence, both vehicles and the fuel and service to sustain them have always been taxed at a higher rate.

Would I give up my car in return for more public transit options? Absolutely, positively -- not! BUT, I actually prefer to park in a suburban area and take transit, preferably rail, into and around the more-congested parts of a city where the investment is justified.

Development of urban transit systems was held back for many years by cultural tensions; that scenario now seems to be behind us, and combined with a 60% growth in our population over the past fifty years and some areas becoming so congested that highway expansion isn't practical, I expect non-automotive options for getting around to continue to expand --- but not so quickly if they're turned over to a clique of youthful. Left-leaning dreamers who think they alone know what's best for all of us.

I also believe that it's a fair criticism that the high initial cost and often-poor prospects for immediate ridership are an undeserved disadvantage for new commuter/transit systems; but in any number of areas, particularly along the Northeastern Seaboard, former commuter lines, running well out into the 'burbs, have been abandoned; these could likely be revived with less investment, but in a number of markets, multiple states are involved.

And unfortunately, one of the first "rules of engagement" for any politician is that the money stays in his own backyard (where he and his cronies can more easily get their hands on it), and that the money for "engineering and marketing studies" and the like is more prone to political influence-peddling than "shovel-ready" activities where something actually gets done.

[linicx]

Peoria, Bloomington, Rockford, Pekin, Springfield, Quincy, Rock Island, Quad Cities, and Champaign offer a city bus service. Most offer a discount for handicapped, student, and senior riders. None of these communities are very near Cook County. Additionally, many of the named communities host a national bus terminal for Grayhound or Trailways, and/or an Amtrak station. For smaller communities they do a pretty good job of serving the public.

[Aerio]

This link to a Youtube video from TestTube News may shed some light in an interesting, concise way. They have links in their description to more facts regarding your question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACEaFnPSSDA (2:44 minutes)

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Aerio

This link to a Youtube video from TestTube News may shed some light in an interesting, concise way. They have links in their description to more facts regarding your question

Most of those "facts" are shameless propaganda from the pro-Big Brother "Urban Planning" crowd; to cite one of the most blatant lies, the promo cites "25 countries with High Speed Rail systems". The actual number is five: Japan, France, China, Germany and Spain. The United States, with a system in operation between Boston and Washington and another under construction in California, could be ranked no lower than sixth place under even the most unfavorable standards.

Despite the hype, Great Britain has no High Speed Rail system, and what it does have was developed largely via a program focused on upgrading existing main lines begun in the Sixties. (Steam locomotives were still being built in Great Britain as late as 1959). The United States, like Britain, had no choice but to follow a policy of upgrading existing rail lines in place because the existing cost of land in congested states like Connecticut and New Jersey rules out new rights-of-way, (Of course, the much-praised Japanese system, now in service for 52 years, had no such problem, because most urbanized sections had previously been reduced to rubble by American bombers).

The video points out that large numbers of Americans have no access to mass transit -- but fails to recognize that large numbers of Americans living in rural areas have no use for it, save for a "park-and-ride" option on the outskirts of our cities.

Most congested European nations built their rail systems with passengers in mind, and there's nothing wrong with that, especially when few European nations are land-locked and many have canals and navigable rivers. But the United States, in common only with Canada, China and the former Soviet Union, has the open spaces and scarcity of navigable water which mandates a rail-based system for our freight. And 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.

Except for the one-time debacle of the collapse of Penn-Central and other systems in the Northeast (most of which was caused by government interference and was restored to profitability by a one-time bailout) nearly all our freight rail system was built by, and remains under operation by private ownership at no cost to the taxpayer. The rules are different for commuter, urban transit, and a limited number of "Corridor" passenger rail lines, and this writer (who holds a degree in Logistics with minors in both Transport Econ and Carrier Management) sees no problem in recognizing this. But the video is little more than a blatant appeal for funding from the same mentality that brought us Amtrak -- suitable for a limited market, but not for the nation as a whole.

[Pincho-toot]

Prague is a European major city, Cheyenne is a small city in Wyoming. Why does it even make sense for you to compare them?

The US is a large country without the density of most of Europe.