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.
Most Americans prefer to drive and the fact that they are willing to pay more to drive is evidence of the value that they give to the ability to drive somewhere.
That's a major oversimplification. Most Americans live in neighborhoods with limited or no public transportation. Most public transportation systems here are anemic and poorly maintained. Since most Americans have no options, they have one and only one way of getting around.
Considering quality transit BEFORE building makes it easier to serve up options after something is built; but that doesn't happen and so there are few options for many people. If high quality transit was offered with grade-separated efficiency at a cost undeniably lower than buying/maintaining/operating an automobile, there would be many less multi-car families.
Most Americans born into and living in the 21st century have never experienced any sort of decent public transit, unlike the generation from the 1930s, 40s, and 50s when we boasted some of the largest and most technologically advanced public transit systems in the world (did you know that Detroit before 1950 boasted the largest urban tramway and streetcar system in North America?)
We all know why public transportation declined from the golden age that you mentioned. Cars, highways and suburbs.
That's a major oversimplification. Most Americans live in neighborhoods with limited or no public transportation. Most public transportation systems here are anemic and poorly maintained. Since most Americans have no options, they have one and only one way of getting around.
Considering quality transit BEFORE building makes it easier to serve up options after something is built; but that doesn't happen and so there are few options for many people. If high quality transit was offered with grade-separated efficiency at a cost undeniably lower than buying/maintaining/operating an automobile, there would be many less multi-car families.
I disagree the public transportation here is poor. I think it works fine for the people who need it and the demand for it. I have never seen any evidence provided that the mass transit is poor.
Would the middle class people who want improvements to mass transit support paying higher fares?
That's pretty funny. Most US mass transit is horrible by world standards. Even in my "pretty decent transit" city, it's not that decent outside of the various bus trunk lines and HOV routes and minimal rail. But everyone else knows that already.
Yes we'd mostly pay more, via taxes, which we overwhelmingly vote for.
People here are relatively smart. We vote for efficient transportation, and not as much subsidy for cars. Measures to subsidize highway expansion have generally failed, or only passed for moderate highway expansion (mostly to rebuild existing deteriorating bridges etc.) coupled with transit.
Yes votes for transit go way beyond the riders. People aren't stupid...better transit helps the drivers too, even if it's only to free up a little road space, or at least not get more jammed as we grow.
Your opinion that US mass transit is horrible is your opinion and I have not seen you provide evidence of it.
By your logic, why shouldn't drivers demand that mass transit riders should have to fund the expenses associated with driving a car, including the car, gas, car insurance, DMV fees, parts and maintenance, etc.
If improving mass transit is so important to the middle class people on here, why aren't you willing to pay more for it. That seems inconsistent to me. If the improvements you want are made after funding them with higher fares, perhaps that would help make it more popular with the public at large who currently prefer to drive.
Last edited by ClemVegas; 10-03-2017 at 09:13 PM..
Would the middle class people who want improvements to mass transit support paying higher fares?
Here in NYC the MTA raises the fares on us every 1-2 years and yes we do pay for it because we don't really have a choice. However that is not enough to fix our issues.
What we really need is more funding put back into our transit from the State taxes that we pay.
I'm seeing some historical inaccuracies in this thread.
The car was certainly favored in the 20th century, and certain bus routes did make certain streetcar routes (especially in places such as Chicago) obsolete.
But by and large, what killed alternative modes of transportation was lobbying and pressure by the auto industry by players such as The Packard Motor Car Co. Also part of the reason sidewalks are rather cramped and jaywalking is a thing.
Now thankfully, the tide is starting to swing back a bit. I'm hoping by the end of my lifetime we can have some decent high speed transit systems, more efficient modern streetcars (Look at the DC H street line as a negative example), automated vehicles etc. No reason why other nations should be ahead of us.
Hell, even if it's just more efficient bus lines in more rural/suburban areas and a centralized train depot within a decent radius of each mainland U.S. citizen.
Streetcars were not popular and were replaced by buses that were more efficient and had lower maintenance costs. Then economical cars were developed and most people started driving.
Streetcars couldn't compete with automobiles in the free market.
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.
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.
