U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-20-2017, 03:28 AM
 
1,186 posts, read 1,833,761 times
Reputation: 1258

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
Obviously just to operate the system needs suitable ridership, but the ridership lacking isn't due to low density it is due to the mindset American people have towards public transport (i.e. "only the poor use trains to get around").
Yet, New York City has a well used public transportation and it's also used by people high income.
Same in Boston, same in San Francisco, same in Chicago, same in DC.
When you get decent density around rail stations, decent service, when services go where people need to go, you get a decent ridership.

Most people don't use public transportation because it's not convenient enough.
If your journey is much longer and much more complicated by transit than by car, you will use your car.
The low density makes difficult and extremly expensive to built an efficient public transit system.
(Spending billion just for few thousand passengers per day is like throwing money away.).

Europe is not different than America in that matter. If transit is not efficent, people drive.
In Paris, public transport dominates because it's more pratical than using car but in most other French cities, car dominates.
The majority of people who use transit to work in France live in Paris metropolitan area.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2017, 05:54 PM
 
Location: London, United Kingdom
5,833 posts, read 6,324,143 times
Reputation: 6335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato ku View Post
Yet, New York City has a well used public transportation and it's also used by people high income.
New York is atypical of the average American city. New York's transit system averages more daily riders than every other American transit system combined/put together. You can't compare it to the others. New York has had a subway system in place for over 100 years now, well over a century. The city had several millions of people living there in 1900 when every other American city (save for maybe Chicago) was infant-sized.

Just because something is successful in New York doesn't mean the same thing will be successful anywhere else in America. Often times the things that are successful in New York are utter failures in every other American city, just straight up. New York's structure diverges from other American cities like Sacramento, Phoenix, Tampa, Cleveland, where ever else and just about everywhere else in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato ku View Post
Same in Boston, same in San Francisco, same in Chicago, same in DC.
Not sure I agree with this. These cities are not the same as New York, they aren't even the same as each other for the most part.

In Boston and Chicago the transit systems have been in place for well over a century (more than 100 years), so the city's were built around the transit and built to accommodate it. In essence the transit is more embedded in their culture, therefore giving these cities a century + of a head start in developing transit oriented culture. Chicago's transit system was first introduced in the city in 1892 and in Boston it was introduced in 1901.

Compare that to recent upstarts like the Washington D.C. area and the San Francisco Bay Area, both systems were constructed and finally operational in the 1970s. Also what makes these two systems successful (by American standards) is completely different than Boston or Chicago. Both Washington DC and San Francisco have hybrid commuter systems as their main heavy rail transit system infrastructure, meaning it serves the city but its more important function is to serve the inner ring suburbs. These suburbs aren't particularly high density but they average high ridership volumes. Why? Because in the case of Washington D.C. the train stations are built as TODs (transit oriented developments) which are basically miniature downtown nodes that have offices, stores, pharmacies, grocery shopping, restaurants, haircut salons, dentists, and the like. These TODs are able to capture a higher volume of suburban commuters that drive to the stations, park their cars in the underground parking platforms, and then get on the train when going into the city. Essentially serving as a park-and-ride but for train commuters. Northern Virginia, for example, in the Washington D.C. area isn't all that high density by global standards and is typically medium density even by American standards, yet is able to amass for high transit commuters. Why? Because the Washington D.C. is a cesspool when it comes to traffic and congestion (and only traffic and congestion) and people would rather drive to the train stations/TODs from their suburban homes and then get on the train and go to the city by rail so that they can avoid traffic gridlock. The same can be said for San Francisco Bay Area and the BART commuters from the suburbs into the city.

I'm not saying that density has no correlation to transit ridership, it obviously does to some extent but in America it is not the driving force to transit ridership.

Which brings me to my next point. Again, Atlanta is the lowest density city and metropolis (both) on Earth, not just America, but Earth. Even Phoenix is 80% denser than Atlanta as both a city and metropolis and Phoenix is globally a very low density place. However, despite being very low density, Atlanta's heavy rail rapid transit system actually amount to more ridership daily and annually than Los Angeles', which is several times denser than Atlanta:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_ridership

Why is that, you're wondering? Because density doesn't have much to do with it in America. The reason Atlanta averages more transit riders on its heavy rail system than a far denser, far bigger, far more congested city is because Atlanta has built a few successful TODs such as Atlantic Station, which became destination points for both city and urban dwellers because they can shop there, eat there, work there, and get their essentials there and it encourages them to get on the train and use the train instead of driving. It also has parking spots for people to leave their cars behind in favor of the train and offers a better alternative to general mobility than the car due to traffic and congestion. Los Angeles hasn't built up its train stations with as built-up TOD style stations yet on as consistent of a basis as Washington D.C. and at times even Atlanta, if it had, its ridership would go up substantially higher because it has more critical mass of people and density to substantiate ridership growth.

The final instrument is stigma. See, in America, transit usage outside of New York and Washington D.C. is generally looked down upon by Americans. They stigmatize it to be a mode of getting around that is reserved for "the poor" and "unwanted". That needs to change and it can. Washington D.C.'s TOD model throughout the city and throughout its suburbs can serve as a model for other American cities to follow to increase transit share without the need for density being a factor. That wont happen though because American city planners are all largely all talk and no action, they always say "we're going to improve" and "we want to bring world class transit to our city" but that fail to deliver on that. So I wouldn't count on America reforming.

By global standards, only New York truly has a great system in the United States. It is when we lower our standards from global to just American standards that you can even add in cities like Chicago, Washington D.C., and Boston because these cities have weak transit share and ridership by global standards. Chicago is a metropolis of nearly 10 million people (9.923 million) and yet it averages less than 1 million riders a day, hell it averages the same number of riders per day as Washington D.C., which has 3.8 million less people and more riders, and Washington D.C. itself is no beacon for global transit awareness. That should say everything you need to know.

By the way, these visualizations will show you the density difference between Los Angeles and Atlanta by metropolitan area.

Atlanta:


Los Angeles:


To reiterate my point, I think American cities should move forward and aggressively try to add more coverage to their transit network, it is a risk because they need to be used in order to be feasible but American cities, despite how low their densities are cannot solely rely on automobile as their only form of general mobility. That's just not wise, even with American cities having low densities, they have high volumes of traffic and congestion and they need to find a suitable method to move people other than the car. I'm not saying expand transit into some detached single family home subdivision but expand transit into other high commercial nodes and all the important commercial centers of the city, in addition to all of the city's airport systems. Washington D.C. is evidence that you can make transit thrive in low density areas such as Washington's suburbs in Maryland and Virginia by building up TODs especially in the suburbs which would incentivize suburbanites to use the system far more because they can drive to the station from their house, leave their cars at the parking platforms at the station, and then use the train to get around the city, thus cutting their commute time and not dealing with traffic and congestion on the roads. Then finally, the last step for American cities should be to try to market transit as a means of general mobility for all people to shed the stigma that it is only for the poor.

Last edited by Facts Kill Rhetoric; 07-20-2017 at 06:31 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 11:09 AM
 
1,711 posts, read 743,337 times
Reputation: 1029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Facts Kill Rhetoric View Post
Because in the case of Washington D.C. the train stations are built as TODs (transit oriented developments) which are basically miniature downtown nodes that have offices, stores, pharmacies, grocery shopping, restaurants, haircut salons, dentists, and the like. These TODs are able to capture a higher volume of suburban commuters that drive to the stations, park their cars in the underground parking platforms, and then get on the train when going into the city. Essentially serving as a park-and-ride but for train commuters.


Atlanta has built a few successful TODs such as Atlantic Station, which became destination points for both city and urban dwellers because they can shop there, eat there, work there, and get their essentials there and it encourages them to get on the train and use the train instead of driving.
I recall mention on another thread about somebody moving next to a TOD-not to ride the transit-but to live next to a convenient miniature downtown.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 03:51 PM
 
Location: London, United Kingdom
5,833 posts, read 6,324,143 times
Reputation: 6335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker View Post
I recall mention on another thread about somebody moving next to a TOD-not to ride the transit-but to live next to a convenient miniature downtown.
Absolutely.

TODs, like those in Northern Virginia which are apart of the Washington D.C. metropolis have a lot of allure and staying power. It is hard not to appreciate a node that has all the bare essentials a human being could want (grocery options, dentists, pharmacies, other shops, restaurants, offices, parks, and the like) but also provide very good access into the city due to the transit options.

On top of that, they're also well geared to accommodate drivers as well. The parking situation underground more than justifies their end means.

All around, TODs, which really are just mini-downtowns, are a great model for other American cities to follow. They have a proven track record in the DMV metropolis.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 05:45 PM
 
1,711 posts, read 743,337 times
Reputation: 1029
Wikipedia defines a village as a compact settlement (buildings are close together), smaller than a town, with a population in the range of a few hundred to a few thousand.

Seems to me that if you add some apartments/condos to a TOD, it will begin to resemble a village-but with transit.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 06:03 PM
 
1,711 posts, read 743,337 times
Reputation: 1029
I recall mention on another thread about an old village becoming the center of a suburb.

Villages aren't part of the national mythos, but perhaps there is a latent appeal to Americans?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2017, 06:05 AM
 
1,186 posts, read 1,833,761 times
Reputation: 1258
A TOD is an increase of the density, it means building a dense neighborhood around a transit station.
A station in the middle of a dense area will get a higher ridership than a station in the middle of nowhere, this boost the ridership and the attractiveness of the line.
As I said earlier "When you get decent density around rail stations, decent service, when services go where people need to go, you get a decent ridership."

In Atlanta, there should be TODs around every MARTA stations.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2017, 03:41 AM
 
351 posts, read 78,438 times
Reputation: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato ku View Post
It's either third in population and size or second in population and in size (depending if you includes Russia) but it can't be second in population and third in size.

France has the density of Ohio or Pennsylvania, it's not that densely populated.
There is nowhere in France where you can find the concentration of inhabitants like in the Northeast megalopolis.


Yes, northeast megalopolis....but those megalopolis visited by tourists, the only areas known by tourists, are just an insignificant fraction of that country.

There are vast populated area with almost no public transportation.

No comparison, the US has a lot of space...and motorization and urbanization in the 10's and 20's wasted those areas. Most western European towns and cities have a very old origin, and suburbanity started during the middle ages, the "burgs"....but there were no cars, no turnpike and freeway developers, no safety.

One thing I observed, I might be wrong, that there are not many people with a "second residence", say mountains, coast, suburban houses act as second residence...I'm just divagating..

Suburbanization destroyed what they call inner city, the doughnut effect, it will take generations to fix it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Decatur, GA
29 posts, read 27,106 times
Reputation: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by botticelli View Post
The fact that many people refuse to accept that a 100% car dependent suburban life is inferior is frustrating.

Yes, Europeans drive too, and yes there are walkable American neighbourhoods in certain cities, but for Christ's sake, take a look at public transit maps in Munich, Barcelona, Lisbon, Vienna (not mention first tier city such as London and Paris), and tell me whether driving a damn car is absolutely necessary every day.

Munich for example, has a metro population of 5.6 million, similar to Miami, Houston, or Philadelphia, and its transit map looks like this
You nailed it man. And this doesn't even take into account the intracity transit. I've only ridden the trains in Germany, but you hope on a train from Munich to Berlin, Paris, well anywhere you don't have to cross the ocean except for the Chunnel from London to Paris.
The trains run hourly. I remember the first time we were going from Stuttgart to Berlin and we missed our train and I was bummed out, but the next train came in less than an hour.

Imagine an hourly train going from Houston to Dallas or Atlanta to Savannah, etc.
Quick reply to this message
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.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top