The real reason American public transportation is such a disaster

[M II A II R II K]

The real reason American public transportation is such a disaster


August 10, 2015,

By Joseph Stromberg

Read More: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/10/9118199...n-subway-buses

American buses, subways, and light rail lines consistently have lower ridership levels, fewer service hours, and longer waits between trains than those in virtually every comparably wealthy European and Asian country. At the same time, a much greater percentage of US public transit costs are subsidized by public tax dollars. In other words, we pay more for transit and get far less — basically the worst of all worlds.

- Although history and geography are partly to blame, there's a deeper reason why American public transportation is so terrible. European, Asian, and Canadian cities treat it as a vital public utility. Most American policymakers — and voters — see transit as a social welfare program. --- "If you looked at the United States, Canada, France, the UK, Germany, and Australia, in the 1950s, they were all on the same trajectory — they were all racing toward automobile dependence," says David King, a professor of urban planning at Columbia University. "But then in the 1960s, you start to see a divergence."

- There's a huge downside to viewing public transportation as welfare — it prevents local agencies from charging high enough fares to provide efficient service, effectively limiting transit to those who are too poor to drive. "Transit in the US is caught in a vicious cycle," says King. --- "We push for low fares for social reasons, but that starves the transit agency, which leads to reduced service." In a sense, it's the same dilemma faced by the streetcar companies 70 years ago. Transit systems in cities like London and Toronto, by contrast, have higher fares and more frequent service, making them attractive options for people who own cars.

- So how do other cities get away with charging higher fares while still making sure poor people have reliable transportation? Strategies vary, but it's not impossible. In Paris, for instance, each municipality is legally obligated to pay the transit agency the difference between its fares and operating costs, allowing it to strive for efficient service while keeping fares down. Other cities, like Seattle, have experimented with charging cheaper fares for people with lower income.

- While there's some debate over transit spending in Canada and Europe, politicians on the right are much less hostile to the idea — it's much more of a bipartisan cause, like, say, road building in the US. "It's just not as politically controversial to build public transit elsewhere," says Levy. "The left tends to be more pro-transit than the right, but they both ultimately support it." --- Meanwhile, a few structural elements of American governance exacerbate anti-transit attitudes. For one, the federal government plays a big role in driving transportation policy. And due to the makeup of the Senate, federal policy is often heavily biased toward rural interests, instead of urban priorities.

- Bus stops in the US are spaced very closely together, compared to elsewhere. Spreading them out would increase bus speed and frequency, but can be politically difficult because it's seen as harming seniors and disabled riders. In Europe, however, much higher numbers of them ride buses with greater stop spacing — because the buses come more often and are more reliable. --- Other sorts of cost-neutral changes include routing buses so as to ease transfers from one part of the city to another, rather than forcing all riders to transfer downtown, and increasing bus service in more heavily populated areas, while sacrificing the number of total stops.

- Still, after many years, there is some reason for optimism. US transit ridership has gradually been ticking upward, even if it's nowhere near European or Canadian levels. And some experts are optimistic that transit agencies are becoming more willing to experiment. In February, for instance, the city of Houston implemented a number of changes to its bus lines that had been suggested by Walker — making the system less oriented toward downtown and increasing the ease of transferring to go from one suburb to another.

.....

[electricron]

UThe major difference, as you pointed out, is the significant higher amount of subsidies American taxpayers are paying for every rider riding our transit.

Check out the fares needed to ride New York's subways vs London's tubes.
NYC = $2.75 single fare (basic services)
London = L2.90 to L6.40 single fare (depending on zones)
That's equivalent to $4.52 to $9.96 with today's conversion rates.

What's readily apparent is that the British riders pay more individually in fares than Americans do. That's why their transit agencies can afford to provide more and better services.

In England, the infrastructure is paid for by the government, the actual operations and maintenance of the trains are paid for by their riders using fares. In America, everything is paid for by the government except a small percentage paid for by a nominal too small fare used mainly to keep undesirables from living in the trains.

[mrnyc]

*humming o canada*

nice blog article

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by electricron

The major difference, as you pointed out, is the significant higher amount of subsidies American taxpayers are paying for every rider riding our transit.

Check out the fares needed to ride New York's subways vs London's tubes.
NYC = $2.75 single fare (basic services)
London = L2.90 to L6.40 single fare (depending on zones)
That's equivalent to $4.52 to $9.96 with today's conversion rates.

What's readily apparent is that the British riders pay more individually in fares than Americans do. That's why their transit agencies can afford to provide more and better services.

I doubt that's the reason. The UK has comparatively poor transit for European standards, and London doesn't have better transit than much cheaper transit systems on the Continent.

Transit in Germany or Italy is dirt-cheap and, especially in Germany, much better than in the UK.

There are many reasons why transit in the U.S. generally sucks, but I don't think the fares have much to do with it.

And NYC doesn't really have cheap transit. The subway, (city) buses and (city) ferries are relatively cheap, but suburban rail is generally more expensive than in the UK (and much more expensive than on the Continent), and most suburban buses and ferries are also quite expensive.

[mrnyc]

^ our transit honchos dont space our busses far enough apart and they ef up the transfers they dont know what they are doing - if they would just listen to that twenty-something blogger dammit!

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I doubt that's the reason. The UK has comparatively poor transit for European standards, and London doesn't have better transit than much cheaper transit systems on the Continent.

It's very difficult to participate in a discussion/argument with someone who will not agree than the UK is apart of Europe!

I'm outta here

[M II A II R II K]

I wouldn't have thought about stop spacing as a significant factor.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by electricron

It's very difficult to participate in a discussion/argument with someone who will not agree than the UK is apart of Europe!

I'm outta here

No one on this thread claimed that the UK wasn't a part of Europe.

But you're welcome to not participate in threads if you have trouble following.

[Beedok]

I think one difference is here it's scene as welfare to give out free tickets and discounted passes. There are some cities in Canada were it has a poverty angle thogh (mostly smaller cities, though also to a degree Hamilton Ontario).

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

I wouldn't have thought about stop spacing as a significant factor.

could you come down and manage one of our transit authorities? our guys are idiots and dont understand these genius insights. or maybe they should just hire wonderboy blogger as an overpaid consultant, he'll school them how to fix a usa transit!

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by electricron

UThe major difference, as you pointed out, is the significant higher amount of subsidies American taxpayers are paying for every rider riding our transit.

Check out the fares needed to ride New York's subways vs London's tubes.
NYC = $2.75 single fare (basic services)
London = L2.90 to L6.40 single fare (depending on zones)
That's equivalent to $4.52 to $9.96 with today's conversion rates.

Phoooey. The NYC Subway's operating cost per ride is around $1.50-$2.00 per ride, well below the base subway fare.
https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.c...base-for-2012/
Meanwhile, Hong Kong has cheaper fares *and* also turns an operating profit.

You can't just raise fares and expect ridership to stay the same.

If anything, I'd say it's low ridership and reliance on low-capacity vehicles such as buses, not low prices, that typically results in higher subsidies per ride in America. The overhead from a bus is the same whether 2 people are riding it or 50 people are riding it. Speaking of which, the NYC Subway is the only component of the MTA that actually turns an operating profit. From the same link as above:

Thus the New York City subway’s operating cost of $1.50 per unlinked trip is the lowest among major transit agencies. The comparable figures for the local commuter railroads are $11.40 for Metro North, $12.00 for the Long Island Railroad, and $10.70 for New Jersey Transit. But the subway’s cost per trip is also far lower than the PATH system, $3.70 per ride, the Staten Island Railway at $6.20 per trip, and the two components of the New York City’s bus system, MTA Bus (the former private companies) at $4.30 per ride, and New York City Transit Bus at $3.10 per ride.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by electricron

London = L2.90 to L6.40 single fare (depending on zones)
That's equivalent to $4.52 to $9.96 with today's conversion rates.

US dollar to UK pound conversion rates are completely irrelevant. Any cost only pertains to a given regional/national economy. In terms of value among any other goods or service purchased at London's local level (i.e. how far your money goes), the lowest Underground fare would essentially be the same as NY. How much it would "feel" for an American to pay Underground fare after exchanging his or her dollars for pounds has nothing to do with it. Just as a transit fare in a developing country may seem low to us, but relatively close to what we may pay percentage wise in terms of purchasing power here.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

If anything, I'd say it's low ridership and reliance on low-capacity vehicles such as buses, not low prices, that typically results in higher subsidies per ride in America. The overhead from a bus is the same whether 2 people are riding it or 50 people are riding it. Speaking of which, the NYC Subway is the only component of the MTA that actually turns an operating profit. From the same link as above:

Buses get plenty of use in Canada. I think we have a number of bus routes that outdo American commuter rail systems for ridership. Plus just apples to apples Canadian commuter rail seems to seriously outperform American systems in metros of the same size. So the mode isn't the issue.

[ssiguy]

There are several issues that face American transit systems.

First, there is the undeniable issue of race. In the vast majority of US cities, transit is seen as a poor man's option which invariable means black.
Second, US cities sprawl a huge amount making transit more difficult to deliver.
Third, Americans more than anyone like their freedom and their love affair with cars exemplifies this.
Fourth, gas is very cheap in the US especially when compared to incomes so the monetary savings of taking transit are not as great.
Fifth, US cities are very decentralized and non-downtown employment usually means free parking.
Sixth, US cities have huge freeway systems and particularly downtown which is lacking in most other world cities. US cities uniquely have freeways that go right thru the heart of their cities which is rare in other countries.
Seventh, not meaning to sound offensive, but few American cities are worth going to except for work. Most US cities are completely dead after 5pm and even on weekends.
Eighth, American cities are dangerous and due to lack of pedestrian traffic in most US cities. people feel vulnerable waiting for transit.

Except for cities that already have decent transit systems and OK ridership {and they are few and far between} you could triple frequency levels and still have little impact on ridership due to the reasons above.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Fourth, gas is very cheap in the US especially when compared to incomes so the monetary savings of taking transit are not as great.

No, this is wrong. Gas in the US is slightly cheaper than in Canada, but transit fares in the US are MUCH cheaper than they are in Canada. It's not the absolute price that matters, but the relative price amongst alternatives.

Standard TTC fare for example is $3.00. Standard MiWay fare is $3.50.

In the US it's not unusual for standard local fare to be under $2.00, which is still much cheaper than Canada even after the exchange rate.

[SkahHigh]

For the U.S, it seems more like a matter of car-loving culture. Public transit is seen as a negative thing (when it shouldn't) and for these reasons you actually see people opposing to some projects (for example: the Milwaukee Streetcar). In Canada (and most other places in the world), people actually push for more transit, especially in the main cities.

It's not normal that a system like the Chicago L has a daily ridership lower than 800K with nearly 150 stations. For comparison, the Montreal Metro system has a daily ridership of 1.2 million with 68 stations. I believe this demonstrates the struggle of mass transit in America given that Chicago has huge ridership potential.

Luckily, New York, San Francisco, DC and Seattle are proof that mass transit can succeed in a car-loving culture. It'll just take time for some cities to adapt and mentalities to change.

[chris08876]

The real reason American public transportation is such a disaster?


Credit: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/a...r-2014-budget/


Clearly the f35 is more important than science or transportation. We need it to fight an imaginary superpower.

If people could stop being fat slobs, and take some responsibility, and exercise/eat right, our healthcare spending probably wouldn't be absurdly high. Which would be good because we could use that money to build our cities and roads. Possibly get a bullet train? That would be nice. Little Spain has one, yet we don't.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Luckily, New York, San Francisco, DC and Seattle are proof that mass transit can succeed in a car-loving culture. It'll just take time for some cities to adapt and mentalities to change.

In the case of those cities, especially NY and SF, the built dense area and legacy of the mass transit is also tied in. I think the best way to increase public transportation ridership in the U.S. is to also increase density of the cities themselves. The car culture will still exist but there could be other greater options like in Canada and Europe. All there is to do is find a way to convince people to give their cars a rest once in a while.

[seaJ]

I'd like to see the numbers in comparison to other large countries with huge populations, huge land mass and multiple big cities that isn't a communist country. Brazil and Russia are the closest. It's great that such and such European country the size of Vermont with one big city and 6 million inhabitants has amazing public transit. Or if you're Canada you are most likely within 100 miles of the US border and living within one of 3 metros (sorry Calgary) most of the rest is too cold or not arable for agriculture and therefore Canada is highly urbanized along the border.

Sometimes I wonder if the US had a population of 40 million, had only 4 big cities in the north (let's pretend the entire southern half of the US was uninhabitable desert) if those cities would have great public transit?

[Nouvellecosse]

You could do that type of rhetorical gymnastics with practically any argument though. Yes, the US is somewhat unique in that no other fully developed country has as large a population. The question is, what's the relevance? I mean, what exactly does the overall land area of the country have to do with the public transit in individual urban areas?