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.
A city that seems not to support public transit? How about Oklahoma City? I haven't perused every route in their bus system, but a sampling of several routes shows something more like a small-city transit system. The busses stop running by 6:30-7:30PM, and there is no Sunday service.
That seems surprising for a city of half a million or so, with a metro population over a million. I can suppose only that there is such a heavy orientation toward favoring private autos that there is too little demand to support the kind of extensive transit system found in some other cities of this size. I've read that there is talk of building a light rail system in OKC. In theory it sounds like a good idea, but I wonder whether light rail might not be a waste of money if people are so hooked on their cars that few would actually use the system.
You either WALK to the station or you transfer from a bus. That's why rail transit, especially subways, is most effective in dense areas.
Actually, many of the riders of the rail lines, especially commuter rail, do not live within walking distance. Case in point: Naperville IL. Many of its residents work or attend school in Chicago. Parking is a constant problem. I believe it is also true of light rail lines.
The problem with surface parking lots is that they require a lot of land, and generally cities can only justify the expense of a subway if land is very, very expensive. Some systems like BART in the Bay Area have park-and-ride lots in outer suburbs, where much of the right-of-way is above ground, and turn into more conventional urban subways in built-up areas where there is no room for a park-and-ride lot. In those neighborhoods, parking is limited and difficult, and traffic highly congested: park-and-ride means a little more complexity in changing from car to transit, but it means you don't have to jockey for a parking space downtown, deal with the slowest, most aggravating traffic, or pay exorbitant downtown parking fees. Surface lines using diesel-electric heavy commuter rail or electric light rail use a similar model, with park-and-ride lots on the outer perimeter and no parking lots at the downtown stations, and higher station frequency.
Of course, the ideal is to have more people living near transit lines by promoting transit-oriented development. In some cases, former park-and-ride lots are being converted to housing units with lower parking requirements, allowing more convenient access to the trains.
Pretzelogik: The problem with that kind of mindset is because the masses are also on the highways--but the "masses" there are riding around in massive steel objects at high speeds, trying to eat breakfast while text messaging and watching a DVD. And while people may uncomfortably bump into you on a crowded subway train, automobiles "uncomfortably bumping into each other" results in about 30,000 dead Americans every year, plus several hundred thousand more maimed and injured.
I would say Detroit, the motor city. I grew up in the Detroit area and mass transit was poor. I did at one time take the bus to downtown for work but the buses were scary. They were in awful shape and when it rained you actually had to open an umbrella while seated, because the rain would just pour through the bus ceiling. Detroit has the car attitude through and through. Taking the bus was for the poor or only if you worked downtown and wanted to save on parking. My husband would like to ride his bike to work for exercise and he was pretty much viewed as some sort of loser. If you don't have a car, then something is wrong with you.
I no longer live in the Detroit area and I have to say I surely miss the freeway system. It is truly the motor city as you had several choices of roadways. I live in a different area where everyone takes the same roads. A few mile commute ends up being twice the time if would have taken me in Detroit.
Location: A circle of Hell so insidious, infernal and odious, Dante dared not map it
623 posts, read 1,225,842 times
Reputation: 473
Phoenix, definitely.
Skeletal bus system and many routes run only every half hour. Some towns in the metro area don't even have bus service; i.e. Surprise, Litchfield Park and Queen Creek.
There's a 20-something mile light rail line running through Midtown/Downtown/East Phoenix, Downtown Tempe and barely into Mesa. Sounds great, but Greater Phoenix is well over 1000 sq miles and that's just a drop in the ocean.
Anyway, some suburbs don't want it, they've discussed commuter rail for years, line extension/new line construction, etc. don't seem likely to happen anytime soon. One of our many useless, all-talk politicians tried to repeal light rail while it was under construction. People complain that it doesn't immediately take them to where they want to go (because it's only one line), move at warp speed or bring money into the area (neither of which happen with any public transit system anywhere in the world) and use that as an excuse to not allow further expansion of light rail.
In sum, people in this town reject the idea of alternative forms of transit.
I have seen a common thread in many areas is that areas don't want to make it where having a car is a class barrier to getting to their place. It is designed as a means to try to prevent poor people from entering by purposely not having mass transit in an area. Also never discount oftentimes the racial undertones in all of this as well. I remember a number of suburbs in St. Louis voted down service due to the idea of poor minorities being able to go to where they live and commit crimes. (many of these places exist as a result of white flight to start with)
One of our many useless, all-talk politicians tried to repeal light rail while it was under construction. People complain that it doesn't immediately take them to where they want to go (because it's only one line), move at warp speed or bring money into the area (neither of which happen with any public transit system anywhere in the world) and use that as an excuse to not allow further expansion of light rail.
In sum, people in this town reject the idea of alternative forms of transit.
You will find a lot of politicians dislike all forms of public transport and ensure it is so bad that only the poor will ride it. It doesn't surprise me that some believe it is so evil that stopping it after construction is started, despite cost, is a great idea. They don't get too far in Northern IL because a lot of affluent voters ride the commuter rail lines. And they don't move at warp speed but a lot faster than rush hour traffic. And yes, rail does bring money into the area. Not only construction, but increased economic activity, less money leaving to buy gas, etc.
Location: A circle of Hell so insidious, infernal and odious, Dante dared not map it
623 posts, read 1,225,842 times
Reputation: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
You will find a lot of politicians dislike all forms of public transport and ensure it is so bad that only the poor will ride it. It doesn't surprise me that some believe it is so evil that stopping it after construction is started, despite cost, is a great idea. They don't get too far in Northern IL because a lot of affluent voters ride the commuter rail lines. And they don't move at warp speed but a lot faster than rush hour traffic. And yes, rail does bring money into the area. Not only construction, but increased economic activity, less money leaving to buy gas, etc.
I would love to see a resource to back that claim. I can't think of a transit system that isn't in the red. It may help development along the lines, but the actual system costs a lot to maintain and operate. Case in point: after they opened the light rail here in 2008, the economy forced them to cut service because they couldn't afford to run trains every 10 minutes like they intended.
The difference in Phoenix though is that people here absolutely oppose change, including public transit. It has somewhat helped areas it serves and has definitely decreased traffic along streets it serves, and an all-day pass is only $3.50 (gas right now is about $2.80+/gallon)... but they still oppose more construction.
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.
