Transit use isn't surging. Experts advocate for higher driving costs (pension, company)

[mayorofnyc]

What the left/socialists don't seem to understand is that if you have to force someone to accept something, that usually means that "something" is not working. Ironically as some other posters mention, these liberal policies actually have the worst effect on the same people they are claiming to be helping.

[CravingMountains]

Originally Posted by mayorofnyc

What the left/socialists don't seem to understand is that if you have to force someone to accept something, that usually means that "something" is not working. Ironically as some other posters mention, these liberal policies actually have the worst effect on the same people they are claiming to be helping.

I am very very liberal, and I am against most public transit initiatives proposed on this board. Please don't bring politics into this.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by 509

Mass transit as we know it is dead.

Everything will change with self driving cars. It will be the end of mass transit.

I suspect given that legislatures can pass the appropriate laws self driving cars within five years will represent at least 25% of cars on the road. Ten years after that most urban areas will be self-driving auto's ONLY due to congestion caused by human drivers.

About that time you will see solutions to commuting with self-driving cars and mass transit systems will in most cases be removed just like trolley lines in the 1950's. I suspect a few VERY high density cities will keep mass transit systems

I wouldn't bet the family cattle ranch on the possibilities of self-driving cars, but even if the technology becomes feasible, the possibility of self-driving trucks could revolutionize our freight-handling systems, saving tens of millions in labor costs (and likely put many mature, not-sufficiently-outgoing men out of a job, with few prospects).

But somehow, I suspect that the prospect of 40-ton highway mastodons on our Interstates with no one at the wheel would scare the daylights out of many of the "pretty people" who gush over the dream of self-driving cars.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by jade408

I think many people can be multimodal. But I also think that trips to the store, dinner, movies, etc could also be served by not using your car. Depending on if you have a smart neighborhood design. You should be able to get to school, shopping, the doctor etc on foot or via a bike. That should also be a viable option.

So you can use your car for the trips where it makes the most sense.

I drive to work. I take transit to shop sometimes. And for some errands. I use my bike for other trips and other errands. I drive to some errands as well. In an average week, I use all modes.

Sometimes my bike is faster, adding in the parking time. Other times the bus is faster than driving (factoring in parking time). There are other times where the bus is infrequent or ends early so it makes more sense to drive. But I am an advocate for choice, and most of our urban design doesn't offer the average resident any.

Transit doesn't work in very low density places, but we can build some higher density places, even in suburbs. Setting aside a few blocks for denser mixed use development for living, working and shopping is good for everyone. It creates a town center. Preferably connected with commuter rail. Even without that connection, many people would be able to make their trips on foot. Or park once and walk around to do everything else.

Transit works fine in the suburbs, it's called park and ride! That's how suburbanites in Europe get to work.

Density is irrelevant, unless you're talking about going EVERYWHERE by train.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

Transit works fine in the suburbs, it's called park and ride! That's how suburbanites in Europe get to work.

Density is irrelevant, unless you're talking about going EVERYWHERE by train.

winkosmosis--

In the time it takes me to drive my car to the nearest park and ride, wait on the next bus/train/etc. to arrive, then walk to my destination after I get off the transit at the other end... I could have driven there the whole way in my car. Probably two or three times over if I wanted to.

In a nice, heated or air conditioned car, listening to the music I want to listen to, putting up with the smells I create (rather than the smells of other people), not being dependent on someone else's schedule to get there... and not having to put up with the various elements from standing around waiting on the train/bus/whatever to show up.

***

Yes, a car carries high costs in terms of gas, insurance, maintenance... but the cost is paid back in terms of time you save.

YOLO. Time is something you can't get back... you can always make more money. But you'll never get that time back that you spent waiting on transit to show up.

[revelated]

Too much rep given to those who support the most reliable, dependable, efficient way of traveling:

Whatever the person chooses.

I see two issues. One, people who advocate public transit live in metros that actually invest in it properly. But that's assumptive. It doesn't work in 99% of major metros. I've heard quite a few counters to this.

Originally Posted by Assumption

"People should just refuse to take jobs that require them to have a car!"

This is possible, but impractical. In most cases the businesses that pay the most, are not directly accessible by train, trolley or bus. Now, maybe you don't care to make more than $30k/year, that's fine. Me, I'd rather make as much as I possibly can - and at a point, if I make a certain level of income, it doesn't matter whether I have an extended commute to get it, so long as I can live the way I want to live on that income.

Take Seattle. Amazon is pretty much in Lake Union downtown, but it's miles from the train station. You'd have to spend at least 10-20 minutes getting to the train station, sit on a train for over 30 minutes just to get to downtown, THEN waste another 30 minutes on bus or bike to get to work. Over an hour to do the same commute that you could do yourself in a car. If you're driving from the south, same distance, it'd take you 50 minutes to an hour. That's simply ridiculous, and shows an inefficient transit system. Building more bike lanes isn't the answer, either. DO you know why the system doesn't work? First, the trains go too slow; they're capped at the same speed limits as cars. Second, the roads downtown are so convoluted and inefficient that buses can't get around any better than cars.

What is the moral of this story? Fix the roads, and everyone benefits (which many have echoed in this thread).

Originally Posted by Assumption

"People should just find homes close to work!"

Again, people in countrified metros can probably say this with a straight face, but if you want to get paid and live good, you're going to live in a major metro. The problem of course is, the closer you live to good paying employers, the more expensive the homes because - wait for it - there aren't any. Lack of inventory = overpricing. You're advocating a person pay over $400k for a dilapidated fixer in a ghetto neighborhood (Chula Vista) when they could pay half that amount for a nice, well-built, retrofitted, safe home that just happens to be 20-30 miles away. In Hangem, Montana, maybe that makes sense. It doesn't in current, up-to-date metros.

San Diego has at least the benefit of trolley access all the way from San Ysidro to Downtown and parts of the East and West. The issue there then is, all of those homes are overpriced or unsafe. You'd have to go to places like Oceanside, Temecula, Hemet, etc. to get good prices, and then you're over 50 miles out and trolley doesn't go that far.

Originally Posted by Assumption

"It would cost too much money to add roads"

It really wouldn't. Federal money is and has been available for infrastructure; the states just keep refusing it because they don't want to own maintenance of the roads and they're too afraid to do the one thing that would ensure ongoing maintenance: a FAIR taxation system.

Seattle was offered money to fix its infrastructure. They refused it; the money went to California. San Diego now has probably the most efficient infrastructure system I've yet seen. Minimum 4 lanes in each direction on the 15 with a dedicated center HOV/HOT lane setup that has four lanes, two as interchange. Direct access on and offramps to the HOV/HOT lanes, so buses, motorcycles, HOV, FasTrak and even emergency vehicles can easily get onto the freeway without impacting traffic. They charge a fair toll for the HOT. When you're going out of San Diego County they charge a toll; on certain southern parts they charge tolls, and they charge oversized vehicles at weigh stations. They also charge gas tax, and they charge extra if you keep driving a beater that can't get past the smog check. The registration fees are higher for older vehicles, and the frequency of smog check increases as your car ages. All of these are designed to essentially discourage keeping inefficient cars around, but they also generate revenue for infrastructure management.

Seattle has two known HOT lanes, 167 and I believe 99. Nobody uses them; why? The toll is punitive. By the time you end the trip you'll have paid over $6; if you end up having to take the 520 that's another near $4, all for a 50 minute commute of 30 miles. $10 for 30 miles is a waste of money. San Diego, the same commute will take you 40 minutes, and the most you'd likely pay is $5. That's why Seattle is unwilling/unable to fix the infrastructure. We have the lowest gas tax around, they refuse to raise it. The tolls are punitive, so people aren't paying it. We have no income tax, so there's nothing there, and what money is generated, gets funneled to the bus system (which swallows and people refuse to take), bike lanes (which are useless since the roads aren't efficient), and state projects like Bertha (which people didn't want and is now collecting dust and wasting money).

Originally Posted by Assumption

"Driving/roads are not needed."

Convenient to ignore the obvious:
- Emergency vehicles. Without roads they can't get to emergency sites like fires, crime, accidents, health, etc.
- Motorcade. Without roads people of importance can't get around the city; so they are forced to close off entire streets which makes the whole situation worse.
- Taxis, which are another form of mass transit;
- Buses require roads to function. Two lanes isn't sufficient even in the most optimal of conditions, and if they don't have direct access to the freeway like they should, they end up exacerbating the very traffic people want to avoid;
- Motorcycles won't go away, now or in the future. Besides, cops ride more motorcycles than cars these days.

Yes, roads are needed, and if they're built right, can have a positive impact on all forms of transportation, not just vehicles. The other thing people are ignoring, which was stated earlier, is that an efficient roadway system where the public transportation can get to and from destinations more efficiently than cars due to the architecture, lends itself to increased ridership. That then lends itself to less cars on the road, BUT you'll have other vehicles that fill in the gaps.

It is a fallacy to assume some nirvana of no vehicles on the road, as it is a fallacy to assume that public transportation will ever be a primary means of getting around in the US. It's never going to happen. The best we can hope for is that all of the clunkers get off the road and we end up an electrified commute society.

[cdelena]

Originally Posted by revelated

...
Convenient to ignore the obvious:
- Emergency vehicles. Without roads they can't get to emergency sites like fires, crime, accidents, health, etc.
- Motorcade. Without roads people of importance can't get around the city; so they are forced to close off entire streets which makes the whole situation worse.
- Taxis, which are another form of mass transit;
- Buses require roads to function. Two lanes isn't sufficient even in the most optimal of conditions, and if they don't have direct access to the freeway like they should, they end up exacerbating the very traffic people want to avoid;
- Motorcycles won't go away, now or in the future. Besides, cops ride more motorcycles than cars these days.
...

Yes, it is easy to miss the obvious...

Commerce relies on road infrastructure. Merchandise gets to the retail outlets, food to restaurants, deliveries to business and individuals (remember the online sales delivered by UPS, FedEx, etc.) via roads. And of course how will the trades people get supplies to your abode (apt, etc.) to fix the roof, plumbing, etc.

Mass transit is a fine high cost (NO transit systems cover operating cost with fares) way to move bodies but it is not a way to fully support society transportation needs..

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by ErikBEggs

Driving costs are subsidized by general income taxes. It is currently eating a nice chunk of the Federal budget (not extreme, but significant). Lawmakers won't increase the gas tax due to political pressure.

And since household car ownership is over 90%, the vast majority of those general income taxes are coming from drivers and riders. You can play games about which pocket it's coming from but it's almost entirely coming from the pockets of the users. So if you're point is that auto users are paying half from their left pocket in the form of fuel taxes and half from their right pocket in the form of general taxes, then yeah I guess drivers are subsiding drivers.

And while transit riders cover 35-45% of *operating costs* from fares, they pay none of the capital contruction costs. That comes from general taxes, again which 90% of those households are automobile users while less than 15% are transit users.

[Chemistry_Guy]

Originally Posted by 509

I disagree. Self-driving cars can actually "go back home" and park. There really isn't any reason for them to park where people work.

I suspect they will also be much smaller compared to today's since you can really build them for urban situations. With each road having EIGHT times the capacity congestion will not be an issue.

My observation is that congestion is really caused by drivers. They really are not very smart about how they drive. A computer does not have that problem.

The other problem with high sped mass transit is urban sprawl. You really need some land use planning to insure that the environment is protected. I watched the BART system in San Francisco contribute to massive urban sprawl.

BTW....I think that is also going to be an issue with self-driving cars. From Seattle it will be a "short" weekend trip to Montana or Idaho!!! Likewise, lots of people will accept a longer commute if they don't have to drive.

Your observations are very much in line with my earlier post as well as some projections done by a DOE think tank that presented to my group a few years ago. The most critical components, though, were that cars will get a whole lot lighter and more efficient, and that self driving cars would permit highly efficient "taxi/rental" style services as well as permitting families to rely on a single vehicle. As vehicles get lighter and safety becomes less dependent on the outliers of driving skill/recklessness and more on the mechanical reliability, roads will be able to be designed with a lot of very cool features to reduce congestion, reduce time spent stopped at traffic lights, and reduce commute times.

[jm31828]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

Transit works fine in the suburbs, it's called park and ride! That's how suburbanites in Europe get to work.

Density is irrelevant, unless you're talking about going EVERYWHERE by train.

Yes! People on these boards salivate over "Europe" as if nobody there has a car and everyone goes EVERYWHERE on trains. The fact is their cities are indeed dense and transit does work well for getting to main points, but lots and lots of people live in suburbs there, too- all of the major cities there are surrounded by lower density suburbs full of single family homes with yards and garages just like we have. And those people drive to get places! They do drive to park and rides and use trains to get to work, and admittedly due to the density and likely the more central location of job centers it is easier for them to take those trains from the park and rides to work, whereas that only works for a segment of the population in most of our cities.