Cities with the best public transportation (Virginia Beach, Norfolk: purchase, maintenance, costs)

[QueenK83]

Why do so many towns and cities in Virginia seem to have horrible public transportation. Like they will only run until right before 9 or something like that?

[badger74]

Most people have cars. Transit is very costly to run without riders.

[aquest1]

Originally Posted by QueenK83

Why do so many towns and cities in Virginia seem to have horrible public transportation. Like they will only run until right before 9 or something like that?

I’ll add that because in Virginia, cities are completely “independent” municipalities from their surrounding counties, it takes an extra level of administration and organization for a transit company to operate successfully in a region since they don’t always get the support they need across county lines. And politics plays a role. As an example, some would be surprised to learn Richmond’s GRTC is owned by the City of Richmond and Chesterfield County (Henrico and Hanover just purchase services and don’t own an interest). For decades Chesterfield used its ownership to ensure no buses would operate in the county whatsoever - this only changed within the last 20 or so years. Another example, Virginia Beach successfully blocked the expansion of the Tide light rail from Norfolk to the Ocean Front, essentially rendering Hampton Road’s costly system, a line to nowhere. On the other hand, some would argue that the nation’s best example of transit cooperation operates in part of Virginia, the WMATA, serving DC, Maryland, and Northern Virginia.

[webster]

Richmond's GRTC is having difficulty finding drivers; my guess is that is reflective of the industry at large. Regarding GRTC, as noted above there is a failure for the area to cooperate. The Pulse line from downtown to Willow Lawn was to encourage ridership. However, Willow Lawn is in Henrico and there is no parking; parking for Pulse is not permitted in the shopping center's parking lot - though some folks do and on street parking is limited.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by badger74

Most people have cars. Transit is very costly to run without riders.

Transit is very costly to run even with riders simply because it's by its very nature inefficient.



However, if there's (potential) riders there's political support to spend those resources on it. Without an interested population there's little reason for a city or county to invest in it.

[lammius]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

Transit is very costly to run even with riders simply because it's by its very nature inefficient.



However, if there's (potential) riders there's political support to spend those resources on it. Without an interested population there's little reason for a city or county to invest in it.

I'd dispute that transit is inefficient by its very nature. I'd say it's inefficient as a consequence of public policy. That's a choice elected officials have made and reinforced for many decades.

That public policy includes transportation funding, agency governance, and land use decisions that favor subsidies for roads, highways, and automobiles over transit, walking, cycling, etc. Someone may say "well more people drive than take transit, walk, or bike," but that fact itself is a consequence of about a century of this public policy framework.

[Veritas Vincit]

Originally Posted by lammius

I'd dispute that transit is inefficient by its very nature. I'd say it's inefficient as a consequence of public policy. That's a choice elected officials have made and reinforced for many decades.

That public policy includes transportation funding, agency governance, and land use decisions that favor subsidies for roads, highways, and automobiles over transit, walking, cycling, etc. Someone may say "well more people drive than take transit, walk, or bike," but that fact itself is a consequence of about a century of this public policy framework.

No, it's inefficient as a rule pretty much and that's why every large transit system in the world is ultimately backed by a government.


It requires hugely expensive infrastructure (rail or highway), heavy initial capital investment in equipment which depreciates as time goes on and requires a permanent and expensive program of maintenance and fleet renewal, has high personnel costs and needs to offer frequencies and routes that are sub-optimal in order to fulfill its base function and remain an attractive option (there's many operational and customer service reasons for that).


The problem with transit in efficiency is that it's based on the conception that a certain number of people want to move between fixed places at fairly reliably steady time intervals. Naturally in the real world this isn't usually the case which leads to inefficient use of resources pretty much automatically.

[lammius]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

No, it's inefficient as a rule pretty much and that's why every large transit system in the world is ultimately backed by a government.

It requires hugely expensive infrastructure (rail or highway), heavy initial capital investment in equipment which depreciates as time goes on and requires a permanent and expensive program of maintenance and fleet renewal, has high personnel costs and needs to offer frequencies and routes that are sub-optimal in order to fulfill its base function and remain an attractive option (there's many operational and customer service reasons for that).

The problem with transit in efficiency is that it's based on the conception that a certain number of people want to move between fixed places at fairly reliably steady time intervals. Naturally in the real world this isn't usually the case which leads to inefficient use of resources pretty much automatically.

On cost, if you think the costs of operating a transit system are high, wait til you learn what we spend to build, maintain, rehabilitate our streets, bridges, and highways (some of which are used by transit services, most not). And the vast majority of that is public money.

In the last paragraph, I wouldn't say "in the real world this isn't usually the case," I'd say "in post WW-2 low-density suburban America this isn't usually the case." This article is one among many that get at the relative costs of various modes of transport to users and to society. Sprawling suburbs with many miles of streets to maintain and all of the social costs of automobile dependence outweigh subsidies for transit operations. In many places, fixed-route transit is "inefficient" because we've built our communities the way we have. Land use decisions and transportation policy decisions have led us here. In other contexts, transit is much more efficient. Therefore, the problem isn't that transit is by its nature inefficient, it's that we are trying to operate transit in a system that is inefficient itself.