Public Transit based Cities vs Car based Cities (metro, Baltimore, carpool)

[ThisIsAMinneapolitan]

Many Cities dwellers, such as Chicagoans and New Yorkers, rely heavily on Public Transportation. Where as other cities have less people taking the trains and buses and more driving their cars. What can be said about the comparison between these two types of cities?

[Hoarfrost]

I's paradoxical. Like here in Detroit, and in a lot of other cities taking public transit is viewed as something only the lower class does. Same for living in apartments. On the other hand, In cities with higher concentrations of wealth, like NYC or SF, such things are the norm.

[NYC1DAY]

Originally Posted by ThisIsAMinneapolitan

Many Cities dwellers, such as Chicagoans and New Yorkers, rely heavily on Public Transportation. Where as other cities have less people taking the trains and buses and more driving their cars. What can be said about the comparison between these two types of cities?

good post. i prefer public transportation.

it actually saves you money. you dont have the $600.00 car payment a month, the $75.00 car insurance payment a month and gas prices that sometimes go out of control

however, if you rely on good public transportation then you are going to pay the price in real estate when buying a place. so its a personal preference

[missionhome]

Here is a table that I find interesting and sort of paradoxical. I would think the cities with the best public transportation would have shorter commutes than cities where you must drive in traffic. New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Oakland are all cities know for their public transportation though and they all rank in the top 10 longest commutes, regardless of the method used (car, train, bus, etc...)
ACS: Ranking Table -- Average Travel Time to Work of Workers 16 Years and Over Who Did Not Work at Home (Minutes) (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm - broken link)
US Census Press Releases (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/001695.html - broken link)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by missionhome

Here is a table that I find interesting and sort of paradoxical. I would think the cities with the best public transportation would have shorter commutes than cities where you must drive in traffic. New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Oakland are all cities know for their public transportation though and they all rank in the top 10 longest commutes, regardless of the method used (car, train, bus, etc...)
ACS: Ranking Table -- Average Travel Time to Work of Workers 16 Years and Over Who Did Not Work at Home (Minutes) (http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Ranking/2002/R04T160.htm - broken link)
US Census Press Releases (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/001695.html - broken link)

yup.

commuting by transit can be more convenient but not necessarily faster.

[Chicago60614]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

yup.

commuting by transit can be more convenient but not necessarily faster.

True. Sometimes I actually pick the express bus that takes LONGER to get to work than the train, just because it picks me up right near my condo's door and drops off a street away from work. I am at the beginning of the route, and I can get any seat I want. Either sleep, read, gaze out the window, listen to music. It's always very comfortable and very quiet.


I chuckle at some people who rely solely on cars who think public transit is only for poor people who just can't afford a car. I suppose in some cities where everyone tends to drive this is true because they have completely inefficient public transit. In other cities with good services though, it's easily chosen by many very high class people.

My express bus is packed with about 80 people every morning, and I've never once seen a homeless person on the bus. It seems it's all the same, white people, many in suits, most at least in shirts and dress pants, 20-50 years old. I actually love public transit to catch a view of all the hotties.

[grapico]

There is only one public transit based city, that is NYC.

If you mean, what cities you can live in without a car... then there are a handful, but that is a different question and they won't be correct answers.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by NYC1DAY

good post. i prefer public transportation.

it actually saves you money. you dont have the $600.00 car payment a month, the $75.00 car insurance payment a month and gas prices that sometimes go out of control

however, if you rely on good public transportation then you are going to pay the price in real estate when buying a place. so its a personal preference

Good post, not only that is you KNOW the exact price you are going to pay. Insurance and gas are going to keep fluctuating. You can sign a lease and at least have that price locked in for a year. For people on a tight budget public trans is the better option. This is also pretty good for all amenities place where electric and heat cable internet are included in the rent. You know what you are paying and don't have to worry about an unexpected bill. My experience has been a few unexpected bills is going to be higher than paying a slightly higher fee for all the amenities. This also goes for the budget plan on say a heating bill.

[Rachael84]

I don't have a car and take the bus/subway. I can afford a car, but choose not to have one since I would rarely use it. I pay about $75 a month for my 24/7 unlimited use metrocard, when I would be paying just over $100 a month in car insurance, plus $10 round trip for the bridge I would need to take to work.

[18Montclair]

The only reason I used to drive into DT San Francisco is because I had a dedicated parking spot in our building's garage-otherwise, I usually caught BART or carpooled.