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.
You're right. I live in Nassau County (suburb of NYC) and I believe that many older white conservatives view the public bus as being a poor people/minority thing. I think this attitude has been waning but it's still present.
I am two outta three, not a staunch conservative, but I dislike riding the bus. Grew up lower blue collar middle class and our family didn't own a car until I was in High School. Once my sister got out of college she swore she'd never ride a bus again, she hated it. Always gave the sense of being poor. On the other hand, riding the train, subway, or trolley, I'm all in.
You're right. I live in Nassau County (suburb of NYC) and I believe that many older white conservatives view the public bus as being a poor people/minority thing. I think this attitude has been waning but it's still present.
It is more about lack of service.
People do not ride the bus in suburbia because there is very little service between the suburban towns. The bulk of the service here in Bergen County is headed towards NYC. If you need to commute 2 towns over and not in the NYC direction, a bus could take you hours - if the service even exists. The ride by car could be only 10 minutes.
Almost every town in NNJ has residential RE and commercial RE. That means commuters are going multiple different ways. This prevents the use of mass transit for many people. There are many people using the bus to get from suburbia here in NJ to NYC for jobs and/or entertainment.
For Cultural, Economical, Geographical, Historical, Political, & Technological Reasons
If you want me to type a more in-depth answer, just tell me(warning, it'll be very long)
Here are some YouTube videos by Wendover Productions that explains it:
-Why Public Transportation Sucks in the US
-Why Trains Suck in America
-Urban Geography: Why We Live Where We Do
-Why Trains Are So Expensive
Didn't feel like linking the videos so here are the titles.
P.S.- Comparing Prague to Cheyenne, WY is a terrible comparison. How are you going to compare a city of 1 million+ to a captial city in the smallest populated state. Prague has more people than Wyoming lol
Last edited by ASJackson814; 07-11-2018 at 08:01 AM..
a. Historical
-The US's formation happened much later than Europe & Asia.
-European/Asian cities were founded centuries before most American cities.
-These cities were a lot of times founded before the car, & the wealthy citizens wanted to have the shortest walking distance, so they near the city center. The poorer generally lived farther from the city center
b. Economical
-The U.S. Funding Highway Systems
-Sources of energy(such as gas & electricity) are cheaper in the US, so owning/maintaining a car in Europe is more expensive
-The public transportation projects in the us are usually state & city funded rather than government funded. Interstate travel through Amtrak is privately funded. Lots of transportation project in Europe/Asia are publicly funded by the Government, such as SNCF in France.
-A private nationwide rail company(such as Amtrak) has to pay rail companies in order to use the rail, and have to wait for the rail company's trains before crossing, causing Amtrak delays/unreliability. A public funded rail company(such as France's SNPC) owns the tracks in the country, not resulting in rail company priority & delays like Amtrak.
c. Geographical
-The US has a large amount of land, as a result, things do not have to be as densely built as Europe & Asia. For example, I listed the population density of 3 cities to show you
Population Density
United Kingdom- 701 people per square mile
United States- 85 people per square mile
China- 375 people per square mile
-Because of the larger size of the US & US Cities, more track line has to be built, therefore it costs more to build a rail system compared to Europe & Asia. As a result of this, train fares are usually a bit higher in the US
-The US has stricter zoning laws than European & Asian Cities, creating less amounts of mixed use space.
d. Cultural
-The U.S. is centered around the idea of personal freedom, & the car has been a symbol of that idea.
-Political Parties supported projects lowering gas costs/oil expansion
e. Buses replacing light rail/streetcars
-Streetcars got replaced with buses. Buses were cheaper to operate, more flexible, & didn't require money to be spent on tracks
-Large car companies purchased streetcar companies and turned them into bus companies
-At the time, buses were more efficient than streetcars, however, now people are starting to realize that bus transportation has its limits(lots of traffic in high population cities, emissions, etc.)
-Even though cities are making a return to light rail/streetcar systems, some companies put them there as a symbol of economic progression/wealth booster rather than a reliable means of transportation
f. Technological
-Heavy Rail trains in the U.S. are slower & cost more than many of their European & Asian counterparts
-Most U.S. cities have light rail, and no heavy rail & commuter rail transit. Light rail is cheaper & more flexible than heavy rail, but has less coverage, slower, & holds a smaller capacity than heavy rail. Commuter rail extends the rail system coverage by providing people in nearby suburbs with train access into the city.
Exceptions are cities like NYC, DC, San Fransisco, Boston, etc.
I am two outta three, not a staunch conservative, but I dislike riding the bus. Grew up lower blue collar middle class and our family didn't own a car until I was in High School. Once my sister got out of college she swore she'd never ride a bus again, she hated it. Always gave the sense of being poor. On the other hand, riding the train, subway, or trolley, I'm all in.
I grew up middle class (probably leaning towards the lower end of what is considered middle class), and never had a problem taking any sort of public transportation. The only reason I don't like taking the bus where I live is because it doesn't run that late and the headways can be up to an hour depending what day it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynJo
Middle class people of all colors actually have the same views which is why many of them love to drive.
You can go to an area like Flatlands or Canarsie in Brooklyn and many people have the same views. Most of their goals is to get a car and not be part of the bus culture!
But I'm guessing those people don't look down on bus riders and drive cars just because they find them more convenient. And I'm also 100% sure that public transportation usage is way higher in Canarsie and Flatlands than say, Levittown or Massapequa. Don't some of the busiest bus routes in the city run through Flatlands?
A ton of people even in the super urban Brooklyn neighborhoods like Bushwick drive, too (even if it's not that large a percentage of the neighborhood's population). Interestingly, white people in Bushwick are probably the least likely to own cars.
People do not ride the bus in suburbia because there is very little service between the suburban towns. The bulk of the service here in Bergen County is headed towards NYC. If you need to commute 2 towns over and not in the NYC direction, a bus could take you hours - if the service even exists. The ride by car could be only 10 minutes.
Almost every town in NNJ has residential RE and commercial RE. That means commuters are going multiple different ways. This prevents the use of mass transit for many people. There are many people using the bus to get from suburbia here in NJ to NYC for jobs and/or entertainment.
Here in Nassau I find the bus system to be relatively extensive, especially in the areas that are dense for Nassau standards. But most of the routes don't run that late, with the exception of 2 24 hour West/East routes. So I can't really rely on it all the time
Okay, here's the really long, detailed answer...
a. Historical
-The US's formation happened much later than Europe & Asia.
Which is refuted by the point that between 1890 and 1910, the USA had the most track miles.
Peak heavy rail mileage: 254,000 miles (less than 160,000 miles today)
Streetcar track: 34,404 miles by 1907, in over 140 cities, with 60,000 cars in service.
Interurban track: 15,500 miles by 1917
(Total rail mileage was over 300,000 miles)
In the US, electric trams (trolley cars) were first successfully tested in service in Richmond, Virginia, in 1888, in the Richmond Union Passenger Railway built by Frank J. Sprague.
(The unsung hero of electric traction rail, due, in part, by a take over of his company and patents by Thomas Edison, who eradicated Sprague's name)
... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetcar_suburb
The introduction of the electrical streetcar in Richmond, Virginia in 1887 by Frank J. Sprague marked the start of a new era of transportation-influenced suburbanization through the birth of the "streetcar suburb". The early trolley allowed people to effortlessly travel in 10 minutes what they could walk in 30, and was rapidly introduced in cities like Boston and Los Angeles, and eventually to all larger American and Canadian cities. There were 5,783 miles of streetcar track serving American cities in 1890; this grew to 22,000 by 1902 and 34,404 by 1907.
...
America's leading position in electric traction rail was deliberately destroyed by competing interests in automobiles, petroleum, and pavement.
Last edited by jetgraphics; 07-12-2018 at 02:04 AM..
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.
That's pretty easy. Despite enormous investments in transit, cities have been unable to bump ridership. In fact, during the period of 1990-2005, transit lost ridership in most cities, with the exception being New York. And that was due to lowered fares. What's more rail actually provides no greater efficiency in energy usage, nor does it cut down on pollution. In 1970 the amount of energy expended per passenger mile for cars was twice that of rail. Today, it's roughly even.
Yet a car confers far more flexibility than a rail system for the individual, which explains why so many Americans opt to use it. The problem with your example is that Prague was built at a time before automobiles, so automobile travel is problematic. That doesn't make rail travel more virtuous, only more practical in that specific case.
Because many of the cities here are cities that were developed to please the car. Cities here overall are newer than European cities. It’s also no surprise that the older cities in America have the best transportation. NYC, DC, Philly, Boston, Chicago, SF!
SF is a great example being that it’s on the west coast and you can see the difference when compared to LA!
That however does not explain, why the aversion to public transit is so unique to the US. Australian cities are low density like their American counterparts, is a very high income country, have huge urban freeway systems, KMs of endless suburbia with big houses on big yards with swimming pools, and Australians have a very high rate of car ownership. All these similarities yet ridership is much higher in Australian cities than US ones and public transit doesn't have the same negative connotation that it does in the US. So why the difference?
I think it comes down to 2 basic things...……….the US love of independence in all facets of life and race. In Australia, public transit is viewed as an essential service while in the US it's viewed as a poor & black social service and most Americans don't want to be associated with either.
That however does not explain, why the aversion to public transit is so unique to the US. Australian cities are low density like their American counterparts, is a very high income country, have huge urban freeway systems, KMs of endless suburbia with big houses on big yards with swimming pools, and Australians have a very high rate of car ownership. All these similarities yet ridership is much higher in Australian cities than US ones and public transit doesn't have the same negative connotation that it does in the US. So why the difference?
I think it comes down to 2 basic things...……….the US love of independence in all facets of life and race. In Australia, public transit is viewed as an essential service while in the US it's viewed as a poor & black social service and most Americans don't want to be associated with either.
But that's mainly a post-WWII phenomenon -- it wasn't always so.
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.
